English translation — קרח ג

Sicha Gimmel<pg>120</pg>

A.

On the verse at the conclusion of our parshah<sup>1</sup>

"And you shall not bear a sin on it when you lift up its fat from it" it is stated in the Sifri: "From where do you say that if you separated it not from the choicest<sup>2</sup>

that you are in the bearing of iniquity? The verse says: 'And you shall not bear a sin on it.'"

And in the Gemara<sup>3</sup>

they said: "Said Rabbi Ilai: From where [is it derived] that one who separates terumah from the inferior upon the superior, his terumah is [valid] terumah? As it is written: 'And you shall not bear sin for it, when you separate its fat from it'

[For if you do not separate from the choicest, you will bear sin.

Rashi],

And if it is not sanctified, why [is there] a bearing of sin?

From here [is derived] that one who separates terumah from the inferior upon the superior, his terumah is [valid] terumah."

And superficially it appears that there is here a dispute between the Gemara and the Sifri,

that in the Gemara only the prohibition of separating terumah from the inferior upon the superior is stated,

and it implies from this that there is no prohibition to separate terumah from the inferior upon the inferior

(and likewise from the intermediate upon the intermediate)<sup>4</sup>

; but not so from the language of the Sifri it is explained that the terumah itself must always be "from the choicest".

And likewise it also implies from the language of the Sifri above on the verse<sup>*4</sup>

"When you separate its fat from it, and it shall be reckoned to the Levites, etc." — "Behold this is a warning..

that they should not separate it except from the choicest<sup>2</sup>

".

[And although if he has only intermediate or poor quality, the obligation of terumah applies only to the fruits that he has,

and he is not obligated to obtain good quality in order to separate from the choicest — nevertheless, there is a practical difference in a case where a person has good grain and poor grain and wants to separate from each type by itself,

from the good on the good and from the poor on the poor,

that according to the Talmud there is no prohibition in this,

but according to the Sifri it must be from the choicest specifically<sup>4</sup>].

And with this there is further to explain a difference in the language of the Sifri from the language of the Talmud,

that in the Sifri the wording is "not from the choicest"<sup>5</sup>,

"they should not separate terumah from it except from the choicest",

unlike the language of the Talmud "on the good": in the Talmud the emphasis is on the differences in the quality of the grain and fruits,

whether they are "poor" or "good",

and therefore it uses "good" in contrast to "poor"

[similar to what we find regarding the measure of terumah<sup>6</sup>,

"a generous eye",

"intermediate" or "poor"]

; but the intention of the Sifri is that one is always obligated to separate "from the choicest",

and this means that even when one separates from the good on the good,

from among the good themselves one must separate the choicest of all<sup>7</sup>,

and therefore it uses "choicest"

[similar to the language<pg>121</pg>

Regarding sacrifices that must be⁸

"perfect and choice",

"from the choice"].

[And one can say,

that the Sifri learns this law from the language of the verse "its fat from it",

for seemingly the word "from it" is superfluous.

And in the Sifri above on the verse⁹

"and you shall lift up from it" — "from its kind upon its kind and not from its kind upon that which is not its kind",

which interprets "from it" — "from its kind"¹⁰.

And based on this one can say,

that according to the Sifri the explanation of "its fat from it" is that even if it is "from its kind",

it must be from the choice of it,

namely the choice of the good ones themselves].

2.

But it seems that one should examine if we should interpret that the Talmud disagrees with the Sifri in this,

for we explicitly learned¹¹

"Any place where there is a priest, he separates terumah from the choice produce"

(And only when there is no priest "he separates terumah from that which keeps",

according to Rabbi Yehuda¹¹

"he always separates terumah

(only)

from the choice produce"),

and it must be said that also according to the method of the Talmud, the obligation of "when you separate the fat from it" is not only a prohibition to separate from the inferior over the choice,

but that they are obligated to separate "from the choice produce".

And so we learned¹²

"And anything that is not kilayim with its fellow, he separates terumah from the choice over the inferior",

behold, the obligation to separate "from the choice produce" also means "from the choice over the inferior",

and they do not separate terumah from the inferior over the inferior.

However, in the Mishnah there it continues "

(He separates from the good on the bad)

but not from the bad on the good",

And according to the above, the Tanna should have said only "but not from the bad" for then this would include also not from the bad on the bad,

And it seems at first glance,

that the prohibition is only "from the bad on the good".

But it can be said that what the Tanna stated "but not from the bad on the good" is because of the continuation of his words,

"And if he separated from the bad on the good, his separation is a valid separation",

And therefore he stated "from the bad on the good" to teach us a novel idea,

that even in such a case,

that not only did he not separate from the good,

but furthermore,

that he separated from the bad on the good,

nevertheless, after the fact his separation is a valid separation.

But initially it is forbidden to separate

(not only from the bad on the good,

but)

even from the bad on the bad.

And this is also the reason that in the Talmud there Rabbi Ilai stated "He separates from the bad on the good"

(which is "in a transgression-bearing manner"),

unlike the language of the Sifri "that you separated it not from the choicest" — it is not necessary to say that this is a dispute,

but rather the reason for the change,

because the intention of Rabbi Ilai is to teach us

(not the essence of the law that it is in a transgression-bearing manner,

but)

the law that "his separation is a valid separation",

And in this there is more novelty in one who separates from the bad on the good; in contrast, the Sifri which comes to teach us the essence of the law that it is "in a transgression-bearing manner",

stated simply "not from the choicest",

which is the novel idea,

that even if he only did not separate from the choicest,

there is upon him a transgression-bearing manner¹³.

3.

But it is forced to explain thus the method of the Talmud,

for wherever we find in the Mishnah and Gemara the prohibition against separating from the bad,

it is said "not from the bad upon the good"¹⁴

[or not from a certain kind

(which is bad)

upon a certain kind

(which is good)¹⁵]

— even though in these places the law that after the fact his terumah is terumah is not mentioned at all.

And it implies,

that the prohibition is only from the bad upon the good.

<pg>122</pg>

And seemingly one can infer thus from the language of the Ramban in his glosses on the Book of Commandments of the Rambam,

who adds in the count of positive commandments¹⁶

"that we were commanded when we separate terumah that we separate it from the good or from the average, not from the bad upon the good"

(and likewise he adds in the count of negative commandments¹⁷

"that the Levites were restrained from separating from the tithe given to them the terumah of the tithe from the bad in it, but they shall separate from the good or from the average, and it is His saying, exalted be He, 'And you shall not bear sin on account of it when you separate its fat from it.'")

And behold, ostensibly one must explain the intention of the Ramban in what he said "or from the average"

("or from the average"),

that the obligation to tithe from the choice only negates separation from the bad,

but it is permitted to separate from the intermediate&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

[And according to the law of "choice ones" in a sacrifice,

that in addition to the fact that even if it is not choice it is not invalidated thereby&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;,

behold also the definition of "choice" that one is obligated to bring initially,

is only that "he should not bring a weak or ugly sheep"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

but one is not obligated

(perhaps even initially)

to bring "from the choicest and most excellent"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;].

And so it is explicit in the Talmud&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

in the passage of "go to the choice ones",

that "the ordinary practice of the householder is that when he tithes from the intermediate he tithes"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

and it is also precise in the language of the Gemara elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

"But behold, he tithes from the bad on the good, whereas the Merciful One said 'from all its choicest',

its choicest yes, inferior ones no",

that only "inferior ones" are forbidden.

But the words of the Ramban "or from the equal",

for at first glance according to the above it should have stated like the language of the Gemara "or from the intermediate"?

And it is more likely to explain the language of the Ramban "or from the equal" that his intention is that if the terumah and the remnants are "equal",

that is, from the same type

(without a difference,

whether they are good,

intermediate or bad),

it is permitted to separate terumah from one on behalf of the other.

Because the prohibition is only to separate terumah "from the bad on the good"

(and likewise what the Ramban wrote "from the bad that is in it",

meaning that the remnants are not bad,

and consequently it is a case of separating terumah from the bad on the good)

— but if the terumah and the remnants are "equal",

even if both of them are from the bad,

there is no prohibition in this²⁵.

[And one should add,

that even if you will say that the intention of the Ramban in "or from the average" is that they are permitted to separate terumah from the mediocre — this is seemingly not in accordance with the opinion of the Sifrei mentioned above&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

which writes explicitly "that if you separated it not from the choice you are bearing iniquity",

"a warning..

that they should not separate terumah except from the choice",

and it is very forced to say that his intention is to negate only "bad"

(and on the contrary,

the plain meaning of the Sifrei is,

that even when one separates from the fine, he must separate from the choicest of the fine itself,

as above in section 1)].

&lt;pg&gt;123&lt;/pg&gt;

And based on the above, one can say that the source of the Ramban is in the language of the Talmud mentioned above,

that the prohibition is only to separate terumah from the bad onto the good.

D.

And therefore it is logical to say,

that according to the opinion of the Talmud

(that in every place it is precise that the prohibition is only to separate "from the bad upon the good",

and on the other hand it is explicit

(as above)

that one must separate "from the good upon the bad",

from which it implies — and not from the bad upon the bad)

— there is a distinction between the obligation and the prohibition

(positive commandment and negative commandment&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;)

:

The obligation

(positive commandment)

ab initio and for beautification&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

is to separate from the good,

and this includes that one must separate "from the good upon the bad"

(and likewise among the good themselves,

the choicest of the good)

; but the prohibition

(negative commandment)

when he does not separate from the good is only when he separates from the bad upon the good,

that only then is it in "bearing of sin"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

(but if he only omitted the beautification to separate from the good and from the choicest,

there is no bearing of sin in it).

[And one could say,

that the distinction depends on the language of the verses: regarding the prohibition

(negative commandment)

it is said "and you shall not bear sin for it when you remove its fat from it",

that the plain meaning of the verse&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

is,

that what remains

("from it")

is not "its fat",

and that is that one must separate from the good to the bad,

and not the opposite,

from the bad to the good; but regarding the obligation

(the positive commandment)

to set aside from the good it is said&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

(also)

"from all its fat"

(plainly),

"all the fat of the oil etc.",

that the terumah

(in general)

must always be from the "fat" and the choicest].

But according to the Sifri,

that the prohibition is not only to set aside from the bad to the good,

but also when he does not separate "from the choicest" he is "in the bearing of sin".

And this is also the view of the Rambam who changed from the language of the Mishnah¹¹

"Any place where there is a kohen, he separates terumah from the choice [produce]",

and he wrote³²

"They do not separate terumah<pg>124</pg>

except from the choice, as it is said, 'When you separate³³

the fat of it from it' — that one can explain his intent,

that the obligation to separate terumah from the choice is not only a beautification of the commandment,

but that there is a prohibition to separate terumah not from the best

("They do not separate terumah except from the choice"),

and like the language of the Sifrei cited above, "that they should not separate it except from the best"³⁴.

5.

And it may be said,

that these two manners

(if the portion not from the choice is in bearing sin)

— depend on the definition of the obligation to donate from the best.

For behold, at the end of the Laws of Forbidden Offerings, the Rambam wrote: "For one who wishes to merit himself should subdue his evil inclination and broaden his hand and bring his offering from the best, the most excellent, etc. 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, etc. If he consecrates something, he should consecrate from the best of his possessions, and so it says³⁵

All the fat is for the Lord, etc."

And one should investigate if the obligation of terumah from the best

("when you separate its fat from it")

is only a detail of the general obligation of "all fat is for the Lord",

or that this is a special law regarding terumah.

And it can be said that regarding this the Talmud and the Sifri disagree:

According to the method of the Talmud, this obligation is only a detail of the general law of "all fat is for Hashem",

and therefore one cannot say that when he does not fulfill this, he is included in "bearing a sin",

for this general law is only an adornment for one who "wants to merit himself"

(as the Rambam wrote there).

And therefore the Talmud holds that only when one separates from the bad on the good is it "bearing a sin",

for then it is a disgrace to the terumah,

that the remnants are good and the terumah

(which permits the remnants)

is from the bad.

But not so according to the method of the Sifri,

that the law of "when you separate its fat from it" is a specific law in terumah,

it is understood that this is a complete obligation to separate from the choicest,

and consequently,

when one does not separate from the choicest "you are in bearing of iniquity".

6.

And perhaps one could say further,

And with the introduction of the dispute of Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Yehuda

(the above beginning of section 2)

whether when there is no kohen they separate from that which keeps, or they always separate from the best even when there is no kohen.

That one must explain that they dispute whether the obligation to separate from the best is a condition in the separation or a condition in the giving to the kohen³⁶

:

R' Yehuda who holds that one always separates from the best

(even when it does not endure)

his reason — because this obligation is a law in the separation of terumah,

because&lt;pg&gt;125&lt;/pg&gt;

The content of the matter of separating terumah is — the separation to G-d&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

as the expression of the verse&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

"All the fat of the oil etc. which they give to G-d, to you I have given them",

"So shall you separate, also you, a terumah to G-d"

(except that afterwards they give it to the kohanim),

and therefore upon the separation itself falls an obligation that it be from its fat

(in the manner of "All fat is for G-d"),

and for this reason R' Yehuda holds that even though it does not endure we are not concerned for the loss of the kohen,

for the main thing is that the separation to G-d be from the best&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;.

But the Tzemach Tzedek holds that this is primarily for the Kohen,

that the giving to him should be from the best⁴⁰,

so that the provision of his needs by Bnei Yisrael will be in the best possible manner,

from the best and the choicest.

And according to this approach, if the best does not keep, the law of precedence applies to that which keeps.

And based on this, it can be said,

that the aforementioned question

(whether the obligation to separate Terumah from the choicest is part of the general obligation of "all the fat is for Hashem" or not)

depends on the definition of "all the fat is for Hashem".

For it is stated elsewhere⁴¹

in explaining the view of the Rambam who did not bring that which [says] "adorn yourself before Him with mitzvos"⁴²

(which is learned from "This is my G-d and I will adorn Him"⁴³)

but only the law that "everything that is for the sake of the good G-d should be from the beautiful and the good,

if he builds a house of prayer it should be more beautiful than his dwelling place, etc. if he consecrates an item he should consecrate from the finest of his possessions, and so it says 'all the fat is for the L-rd' etc." — that the intention in this is for a matter that is similar to a sacrifice upon the altar

(a sacrifice to the L-rd),

that he gives over the matter to the L-rd,

like "build a house of prayer",

"consecrate an item"

[and also the examples in the Rambam there of "fed the hungry, etc. clothed the naked" is because it deals with charity which is for atonement⁴⁴],

that in this it must be "from the finest of his possessions",

because this pertains to the object,

that by the matter being "from the finest" the offering to the L-rd is in completeness and with more adornment.

And according to this, the view of the Rambam in our subject is explained

(separating terumah from the finest)

: since we hold as law like the first Tanna that when there is no kohen they separate from that which keeps,

and this is because this is a law in giving to the kohen,

it follows,

that this law is not connected to the general obligation of "all the fat is for the L-rd"

(which is only regarding "everything that is for the sake of the G-d"),

therefore the Rambam holds that this is a new and specific law regarding separating terumah that they must give to the kohen from the finest,

and since this is a specific law in terumah he also holds that it is not merely an adornment ab initio,

but rather if they do not fulfill this law there is bearing of iniquity

(like the view of the Sifri),

and therefore he wrote "they may only separate terumah from the finest",

as above.

But not according to the method of the Talmud,

that there is an obligation of beautification of a commandment in all commandments,

"Adorn yourself before Him with commandments"

(And it can be said that according to the method of the Talmud there is no difference between the law of beautification of a commandment in general,

and the obligation of "all the fat is for the Lord"),

and therefore they hold that the obligation to tithe from the choice is only a detail in the general obligation of beautification of a commandment and "all the fat is for the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore it is impossible to say that because of this&lt;pg&gt;126&lt;/pg&gt;

that one who is not among the beautifiers will have in this "bearing of sin".

7.

And behold, there is yet another difference between the language of the Sifri and the language of the Talmud,

for in the Talmud the language is "And if there is no sin-offering, why a bearing of sin?"

(and it is like the language of the verse itself "and you shall not bear sin because of it"),

but in the Sifri it changes and says "that you are in the bearing of iniquity,"

and it is known that "iniquity" is more severe than sin⁴⁶.

And behold, although it was said above that this law

(that only because it lacks "the choicest" there is in this a "bearing of iniquity")

is only regarding terumah — nevertheless,

one may learn from this also regarding the rest of the commandments of the Torah, when one lacks in the beautification of the commandment — for although one is not obligated and compelled regarding beautification,

nevertheless,

when one does not beautify in the commandments,

it is not only that the virtue of beautification of the commandment is lacking in him,

but rather there is in this

(a kind of)

bearing of iniquity⁴⁷

(that it is considered a deficiency in the commandment itself).

And the measure of good is greater etc. — that when one performs commandments with beautification,

behold, in addition to the reward for the beautification of the commandment,

there is an addition in the reward of the commandment itself.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Korach 5724,

20 Menachem Av 5745)