English translation — ויקרא ג

Sicha 3<pg>13</pg>

A.

The Rambam wrote in the Laws of Disqualified Sacrifices<sup>1</sup>

(after he explained<sup>2</sup>

the ways of sacrifices that were mixed and the details of their laws)

"All holy things can become mixed with their own kind except for the sin-offering with the guilt-offering,

for the guilt-offering is only from male sheep and you have no sin-offering from sheep except a female",

and the source of his words is in the Mishnah Zevachim<sup>3</sup>

"All can become mixed except for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering".

And the commentators wondered⁴

: what is the need to inform us that "all can be mixed except for the sin-offering and the guilt-offering",

and behold, that guilt-offering and sin-offering cannot be mixed is due to the necessity of reality,

since this one is male and that one is female,

and if so, why does the Tanna need

(and likewise the Rambam)

to inform us of something that is in reality?

There are those who answered⁴

that he taught thus

(in the Mishnah)

so that it should not be difficult: why did he not teach the law of a sin-offering and guilt-offering that became mixed, just as he taught the law of other mixtures.

But at first glance it is forced,

that since in reality it is impossible for them to mix — then from the outset there is no place for the question "Why did he not teach a law that does not exist in reality"

(Are we dealing with fools?⁵).

And also if you say

(with great difficulty)

that such is the way of the Mishnah⁶

to clarify also such a question

(Why did he not teach a specific law etc.,

even when this law has no place in reality)⁷

— then it is understood that it is impossible to explain thus the words of the Rambam,

whose book is only "laws, laws"⁸.

Another explanation is in the commentators<sup>9</sup>,

that it itself teaches us,

that the ewe that is written regarding the sin-offering is essential.

But also this explanation is difficult to reconcile,

because:

(a)

Why should it inform us that the ewe that is written regarding the sin-offering is essential in the law of mixtures — and not in its simple sense that one who offers a male for his sin-offering has not fulfilled his obligation?

(b)

And the main point: that the ewe that is written regarding the sin-offering is essential is a simple matter,

as is evident from the discussion in the Gemara<sup>10</sup>

only regarding one who designates a female for his burnt-offering, whether sanctity applies to it

(c)

The Rambam has already ruled

(in the chapters before this<sup>11</sup>)

that a layperson who designates a male for a sin-offering does not become sanctified

(neither sanctity of the body nor sanctity of money).

2.

And behold in the Gemara there¹²

It is stated: What is different between a chatat and an asham that this one is male and that one is female? A chatat and an olah also

[this one is male and that one is female there is the goat of a prince

[which is male],

chatat and asham<pg>14</pg>

also¹³]

there is the goat of a prince

[and if so, an asham could also become mixed with a chatat],

this one has hair

["it has no wool but hair"¹⁴]

and this one has wool

["a ram¹⁴

it is and it has wool"].

And it is puzzling: why did the Rambam write that "except for the sin-offering with the guilt-offering" because of the distinction of male and female,

and he did not also bring the distinction in the Gemara regarding "the goat of a prince",

that this one

(the sin-offering of the prince)

hair

(goat)

and this one wool

(ram)¹⁵?

At first glance, it is possible to resolve based on the precise language of the Rambam: "All sacred offerings can possibly become mixed species with species, etc., and you have no sin-offering from the sheep except a female",

meaning that the Rambam spoke only about a mixture of "species with its species",

in which there is a need to distinguish between a guilt-offering and a sin-offering

(for both are sheep)

that this one is male and that one is female; but not so the distinction between the sin-offering of the prince and a guilt-offering is that they are two species

(goat and ram),

for it is obvious that they cannot become mixed.

But from this itself that the Gemara distinguishes between the sin-offering of the prince and the guilt-offering only because of this that "this one has hair and this one has wool" — even though they are two species

(ram and goat)

— it is proven,

that this that they are two species still does not negate the possibility that they might become mixed,

and the reason that they cannot become mixed is only because the goat has no wool like the ram.

Beyond this: In the Gemara¹⁶

it is explicit

(and brought in Tosafot here¹⁷)

that it is possible to err between goat and ram,

because "they say a black ram is he"

("they think

(that the goat)

is a black ram"¹⁸)

[And for this reason it is possible to slaughter a goat for the sake of a guilt-offering

(And we do not say that since the difference between a goat and a guilt-offering

(ram)

"the matter&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

is obvious to all" then "his actions prove about him" that he is lying&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

and he did not intend for the sake of a guilt-offering)

— because it is possible that he did not distinguish between a goat and a ram, for "they say a black male is it"],

Thus the difference between a goat of a prince and a guilt-offering

(ram),

despite their being two species,

is not called such an obvious difference, and it is possible to err between them

[And what the Gemara says here that it is impossible that they would be mixed up,

is only

(as the Tosafos say&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;)

because "when we examine it, it is possible to clarify"].

And if so, the difficulty returns to its place — why did the Rambam not bring

(in his commentary)

also the distinction

(in the Gemara)

between the goat of a prince and a guilt-offering

(that they cannot be intermingled)?

3.

And one can say — with an introduction:

Known are the words of the Zohar²¹,

that the revealed part of Torah and the hidden part of Torah are called the body of the Torah and the soul of the Torah,

that is,

the relationship between the revealed and the hidden is like the relationship between the soul and the body.

From this it is understood,

that just as the soul and the body correspond to each other in all their details

(and when there is a lack of correspondence between them, G-d forbid, this causes confusion in health, etc.),

so too is it regarding the revealed and the hidden of the Torah,

that they are not two separate parts, G-d forbid,

but correspond to each other.

And perhaps it can be said,

that this is one of the reasons for this,

that there are matters in the revealed part of Torah that cannot be understood to their fullest without their explanation in the <pg>15</pg>

Pnimiyus HaTorah — to teach,

that the two parts of the Torah are not separate parts from each other, G-d forbid,

but rather both of them are parts of “one Torah”,

to the extent that each of them completes the other²².

And if the words are correct regarding all matters of the Torah,

all the more so regarding korbanos,

it is known that the content of the matter of korbanos is

(not so much²³

the act of offering,

but rather)

the thought and intention of the person before and during the offering

[this is also one of the explanations²⁴

of the term korban — that the person brings himself close to Hashem; and as is also hinted at the beginning of the portion of korbanos — “A person when he brings a korban from you to Hashem”,

that the offering must be “from you”,

from the person himself²⁵]

— that is,

that together with “the laws of korbanos” in the act of offering,

there are “the laws of korbanos” in relation to the offering of the person²⁶.

And based on this, one can say in our matter: the novelty in the halacha

(in the Mishnah and Rambam)

that the chatas and asham cannot become mixed,

is not

(so much)

in the matter of the act of offering

(in physicality)

— that in this it is impossible in reality that the chatas will become mixed with the asham — but rather in the matter of "the laws of chatas and asham" in the duties of the heart and their spiritual content,

that in this it is possible that there will be a mixture of the service of chatas

(in spirituality)

and the service of asham

(in spirituality)

— and the Tanna innovates,

that since this one is a male and this one is a female,

therefore even in spirituality it is impossible for them to become mixed.

[And even though the Rambam wrote

(at the end of the book of Avodah²⁷)

that "all the sacrifices, all of them, are from the category of chukim",

nevertheless at the end of the book of Korbanos²⁸

he wrote "even though all the chukim of the Torah are decrees,

it is proper to contemplate them and whatever you can give a reason for, give a reason for it"²⁹.

And it is understood from this,

that also the fact that asham and chatas cannot become mixed because asham comes from males and chatas comes from females — even though it is in the category of chukim,

it is proper to contemplate it and give a reason for it³⁰,

and in the language of the Rambam there — study to "correct the opinions and straighten all the deeds"].

4.

And one must say the explanation in this:

The general distinction between a chatas and an asham is,

that an asham is more severe than a chatas,

to the extent that several ashams come also for intentional [sins]³¹,

but not so a chatas comes only for unintentional [sins],

and as the Ramban elaborated in his commentary on the Torah³²

in the explanation<pg>16</pg>

The distinction between guilt-offering and sin-offering

(And as emphasized in their names).

And it can be said,

that this matter is expressed not only in the equality

(Even — in monetary value)

of them — that a sin-offering is a danka

(ma'ah)

and a guilt-offering two selas³³

(48 ma'in³⁴)

— but also in that "a guilt-offering is only from male lambs and you have no sin-offering from lambs except a female"³⁵

:

The distinction between service of the aspect of "male" and service of the aspect of "female" is understood simply,

male indicates strength and force,

and female — on softness and weakness

(like "his strength weakened like a female"³⁶),

and like what is said³⁷

at the giving of the entire Torah and all its commandments — "Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel" and Rashi³⁸

"To the house of Jacob, these are the women, say to them in a soft language, and tell the children of Israel, punishments and details, explain to the males things hard as sinews."

And this is that for the action of a sin-offering

(which is only for an unintentional sin)

service in the aspect of softness suffices

(female),

whereas for a guilt-offering

(which comes also for an intentional sin)

service in the aspect of strength is needed

(male).

5.

Explanation of the matter³⁹

:

Among the reasons that a sacrifice atones for sin, several reasons and explanations are brought in the Midrashim of our Sages, of blessed memory, and in the commentators on the Torah⁴⁰,

and among them two main reasons:

A)

Ramban⁴¹

explained "that a person should think, when doing all these, that he sinned against his God with his body and soul, and it would be 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 and atonement of this offering, etc.'",

that specifically then the offering atones.

B)

Offering, its content is drawing near⁴²

the faculties and senses to the Holy One, blessed be He,

and it is by means of this: "When a person offers — from you an offering to the Lord,"

that he draws near to the Lord,

and it may be said that it is through contemplation in this very thing,

that this, that he sinned and blemished and perverted the way, is because of the animal soul and its evil inclination,

that this is not the true existence of a Jew,

but rather<pg>17</pg>

The truth of His existence is his divine soul⁴³,

which is literally a part of God from above⁴⁴,

and even at the time of sin it was in faithfulness with him⁴⁵,

and through this itself his divine soul is revealed and aroused in him,

and he returns from his sin and draws near to God with greater intensity etc.

And it can be said,

that these two modes,

in general,

are the two matters mentioned above — the service in the aspect of male and the service in the aspect of female:

The first manner,

that a person should think that it is fitting for him that his blood be spilled and he be burned etc.,

this is a matter of strength and force,

hard things like sinews,

that he nullifies himself; whereas the second manner, the main content of the contemplation is in his virtue,

in the manner of his divine soul that is found in him and is always connected and bound with the Holy One blessed be He etc.,

and relative to the above, it is the service of the aspect of female,

a soft language.

And based on this it will be understood why a sin-offering comes female and a guilt-offering comes only from males — because a sin-offering comes for an unintentional sin,

for which it suffices that he contemplate that the sin came from the dominance of his animal soul,

whereas his true existence is good etc.; but not so a guilt-offering, which

(sometimes)

comes also for an intentional sin,

since his evil inclination stands in dominance and so openly that it is possible and sometimes actually happens that it causes him to sin intentionally,

it is not sufficient with contemplation of the good hidden within him in order to awaken it and reveal it

(and even that it will affect the person that he draw near to G-d)

etc.,

because since his evil inclination overpowered him so much, this indicates that his good is in a very great concealment,

and therefore he needs service in the manner of "male",

namely hard things like sinews,

to beat down⁴³

and subdue his evil inclination,

as our Rabbis of blessed memory said⁴⁶

"Always a person should incite the good inclination against the evil inclination"⁴⁷.

6.

And behold, all this is in the usual manner.

However, it is possible sometimes,

that these two kinds will intermingle and be exchanged with each other,

namely, that this one who transgressed inadvertently will be worse than the one who transgresses intentionally.

For example,

if this one who transgressed intentionally was not entirely due to his own fault,

but rather because of his friends, etc.

(as per the statement⁴⁸

"many bad neighbors cause [it]")

or because he was born with a bad nature⁴⁹

and the like; but not so this one who transgressed inadvertently is because he did not watch over himself with open eyes⁵⁰

in the service of G‑d,

to subjugate himself to his Creator,

and consequently he came to sin inadvertently due to the overpowering of the animal soul⁵¹.

And in this the Rambam innovates,

that "all holy things can possibly intermingle species with its species except for the sin-offering with the guilt-offering, for the guilt-offering is only from male sheep and there is no sin-offering from sheep except a female":

In the root and cause of the matter, however, it is possible that the thing could become mixed,

That is, from the perspective of the person, it is possible that the sin for which he brings an asham is not so severe

(in the cause of the act of sin),

and the sin for which he brings a chatat is more severe

(in the cause of the act of sin),

Therefore there is room to say that in such a case, for the asham the service and movement of&lt;pg&gt;18&lt;/pg&gt;

atonement suffices in the second manner mentioned above,

in a soft manner and language,

And regarding the chatat, specifically the first manner mentioned above, harsh words, is necessary.

And therefore the Rambam informs us,

that even though in matters of serving G-d mixing between them applies — here regarding the effect of the sin and atonement in the world,

from the perspective of the object of the sin for which a guilt-offering comes,

it must specifically be "male lambs" — the manner of service of "a person should agitate",

and from the perspective of the object of the sin of a sin-offering,

it must specifically be a female,

a soft language,

to reveal his true existence, i.e., the good within him.

7.

And based on the above, it is understood why a he-goat of a prince, even though it is a sin-offering, comes from males,

and not a female: when a prince sins,

behold, even though it is completely unintentional, his manner of repentance and atonement must be in a manner of "male",

hard as sinews.

And the reason,

because even a light sin of a prince acts and influences greatly,

affects the entire nation⁵²

(in the manner of our Sages, may their memory be blessed,⁵³

on the verse "and I will place them upon your heads").

And nevertheless the Rambam wrote here the reason that a chatat and an asham cannot be mixed, only the distinction of male and female, and he did not mention also this, that it is impossible that a chatat and an asham could be mixed also when the chatat is a male, the goat of a prince,

because this one is goat hair and that one is wool⁵⁴,

For the Rambam stated the general content,

in what is expressed the distinction between the manner of atonement for a sin of a chatat and the manner of atonement for a sin of an asham,

because of the object of the sin.

But this, that a prince who sinned [brings] a goat, does not pertain to the body and essence of the sin,

and consequently, for the definition of the atonement of chatat and asham,

each is according to the person sinning,

because of his being a prince,

as above,

and consequently he needs a goat for his atonement.

(From the farbrengen of the night of the fifth day of Sukkos 5745)