English translation — נח ב

Sicha 2<pg>24</pg>

A.

We learned in tractate Zevachim<sup>1</sup>

: "Before the Mishkan was erected, the high places were permitted etc. and all were fit to be offered,

beast, wild animal, and bird, males and females, unblemished and blemished, pure..

For the verse says<sup>2</sup>

And Noach built an altar to the Lord and took from every pure beast and from every pure bird..

To exclude a missing limb..

That was forbidden to the children of Noach<sup>3</sup>..

And from every living thing, from all flesh<sup>4</sup>

The Torah said: bring an animal whose limbs' heads are alive."

That is to say,

Even though for a son of Noach there is no prohibition of offering a blemished animal when he offers on a high place

(And likewise regarding the offerings before the giving of the Torah),

Nevertheless,

there is a prohibition<sup>5</sup>

of offering a missing limb.

And superficially it seems,

that a blemished one and one lacking a limb are two different names and prohibitions<sup>6</sup>,

that "blemish" means any imperfection whatsoever,

so that there is a blemish that is not due to a lack in a limb but only a change relative to a normal limb,

but "one lacking a limb" means literally,

a lack.

But it seems to me that it is not so,

based on the precise language of the Talmud<sup>7</sup>

(in the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza),

that when the emperor sent an offering to Israel to sacrifice on the altar,

behold "while it was coming he cast a blemish in its lip and some say a white spot in its eye,

a place that for us is a blemish and for them is not a blemish"

(and in Rashi: for them it was not a blemish to sacrifice to the Most High on their own high place, but rather lacking a limb).

And from the precise language "and for them it is not a blemish"

(and not — "it is not invalid" and the like),

it implies,

that also for a son of Noah the disqualification of lacking a limb is because of the name "blemished one"<sup>8</sup>,

except that for them only "one lacking a limb" is considered a "blemished one"

(and when not lacking a limb it is considered unblemished),

but for us even "a white spot in the eye" is a blemish.

And we will explain this according to what is explained elsewhere⁹

at length,

that there are several levels and manners in the matter of completeness and wholeness,

and in the manner of the exposition of our sages of blessed memory¹⁰

on the verse¹¹

"a complete year" — "to include the intercalated month",

for even a simple year is called a year¹²

(complete)

that lacks nothing,

nevertheless it is not "a complete year",

that this description is only for a leap year which has thirteen months¹³.

And this is because the description "complete" indicates not only the negation of lack,

but rather<pg>25</pg>

additional completeness and wholeness

(that even without it the thing is not lacking).

And these two matters we find regarding the matter of the sacrifices

(of Israel)

itself,

and in the language of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

"A positive commandment that all the sacrifices be unblemished and choice",

which are two different laws,

that "unblemished" means that the sacrifice must be whole,

and furthermore,

that it must be "choice"

("the choice of your vows"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;),

and as explained in the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

the conditions required that the sacrifice be "choice"

(even though even without them it is not blemished).

And accordingly, it can be said,

that in this manner is the difference between the sacrifices of Israel and the sacrifices of a Noahide: in the sacrifices of Israel

(after the giving of the Torah)

wholeness and extra perfection is required,

that even a defect

(or change)

in the limb itself is considered a lack and a blemish; but regarding the wholeness and perfection in the sacrifices of a Noahide

(and also in the sacrifices of all people before the giving of the Torah),

only a missing limb is considered a blemish

(the opposite of wholeness),

whereas a blemish and defect in the limb itself "is not a blemish".

2.

In this way we must explain the words of the Rambam¹⁷

regarding a bird offering,

that he wrote: "Blemishes do not disqualify in a bird..

for it was not stated¹⁸

'unblemished male' except regarding an animal alone,

in what case [does this apply]? With small blemishes, but a bird whose wing withered or whose eye was blinded or whose leg was severed is forbidden for the altar, for one does not offer a [bird] lacking [a limb] at all."

And now this law

(that one lacking a limb is also disqualified in a bird)

we learn in the Gemara¹⁹

(and also in the Torat Kohanim²⁰)

from what is written "from the bird²¹,

and not all the bird."

And according to this, there is room to say,

that the law of "unblemished" was not stated at all regarding a bird,

and as the plain language of the baraita²²

"There is no unblemished..

in fowls",

except that there is a special teaching to exclude one lacking a limb also in a bird

(and as the Minchat Chinuch²³ elaborated,

and see there also the practical difference for halacha).

But the Rambam, his word is clear,

that indeed a missing limb is invalid in a bird

(not because of the study of "from the bird",

but)

according to "that one does not offer a deficient one at all",

that this law

(a)

is not specific to a bird but is a general rule in every offering,

(b)

is learned

(as the Rambam wrote before this&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;)

from what is said&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

"unblemished they shall be for you",

meaning that also the disqualification of a missing limb in a bird has its foundation in the law of "temimut"&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;26&lt;/pg&gt;

And based on this it is puzzling,

that since also a bird offering is included in "unblemished they shall be for you",

what is the explanation that it is not in the law of "tamim" which excludes a blemished one?

And based on the above, it can be said,

that the Rambam holds,

that a blemished one and a missing-limb one are not two separate names,

that only one of them

(missing a limb)

exists in a bird,

but rather the definition of wholeness required in a bird excludes only a missing limb and not a mere blemish

(in the manner mentioned above regarding offerings of a Noahide and offerings before the giving of the Torah)²⁷.

And it can be said in explanation of the matter:

An animal sacrifice is a rich person's sacrifice relative to a bird sacrifice

(according to the law of a sliding-scale sacrifice,

a poor person brings a bird sacrifice).

And behold, the definition of the concept of wealth is not merely the filling of lack

(for with the rich person nothing is lacking),

but rather it is an additional perfection.

As our Sages, of blessed memory,²⁸

regarding the commandment of charity: "sufficient for his lack"²⁹

you are commanded to support him,

but you are not commanded to enrich him",

that is to say,

that even though we are obligated to fill every lack of the poor person

[up to "that which he lacks"²⁹

including "even a horse to ride upon and a servant to run before him"²⁸,

if he is of noble birth²⁸

worthy of that],

nevertheless there is no obligation to enrich him,

behold that wealth is an additional perfection,

beyond the filling of lack.

And therefore,

regarding a bird sacrifice

(a poor person's sacrifice)

only a missing limb is considered a lack,

which contradicts the matter of unblemishedness,

whereas a small blemish "is not a blemish" and the sacrifice is included in "they shall be unblemished for you"; and only in an animal sacrifice,

a rich person's sacrifice,

even a small blemish removes it from the category of "unblemished".

3.

According to this point,

that this that a plain blemish

(that does not involve a missing limb)

was not invalid in offerings before the giving of the Torah

(and likewise after the giving of the Torah in a bird offering of an Israelite),

is not because they do not have the law of unblemishedness,

but because the level of perfection and unblemishedness required in them is not impaired by a plain blemish —

One can resolve

(according to the inner aspect of the matters)

the difficulty of Tosafot³⁰

on the language of the Talmud regarding that which Rabbi Akiva validates³¹

blemished animals that "if³²

they ascended they shall not descend",

which is only "in the case of spots in the eye since they are fit in birds"³³.

And Tosafot wrote "it is difficult, for there are several blemishes that do not disqualify<pg>27</pg>

[that are not lacking a limb]

And why does it specify a blemish in the eye,

and likewise in Gittin⁷

[in the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza]

he could have cast the blemish in another place"

(and not specifically in a blemish of the eye or a lip³⁴),

and they remained with the difficulty³⁵.

And according to the above, it can be said,

that in this example the Talmud hints,

that the inner content of the additional perfection that was innovated through the Giving of the Torah regarding the matter of the sacrifices,

because of which "any blemish" is excluded

(in the animal sacrifice of an Israelite),

pertains specifically to the matter of seeing³⁶.

4.

And this will be understood based on what is written in the Chinuch&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

in the root reason of the commandment "that every offering should be unblemished,"

"with what we have prefaced..

regarding the matter of offerings according to the simple explanation that they are to awaken and direct the thoughts of men to the Holy One, blessed be He,

for a person is affected by the power of his actions,

therefore it is fitting at least that the offering be without blemish,

for the thoughts of men will not rest nor spread out in an inferior type as in a valuable one,

for hearts are aroused by a valuable and perfect one in its kind more."

And this can be explained in greater depth based on the words of the Bachya&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

in the explanation of the word offering,

that it is from the language of drawing near,

and the matter of offerings "is the drawing near of the powers and attributes" to the Holy One, blessed be He.

And based on this it can be said,

that this that an offering must be "unblemished" without a blemish,

this is because it needs "to awaken and direct the thoughts of men" to draw near all of his powers and senses "to the Holy One, blessed be He."

And this is that regarding a ben Noach, "dokin shebe'ayin" are not in the category of a blemish,

because regarding a ben Noach, the concept of seeing Divinity is not required.

Explanation of the matter:

Although also by Bnei Noach there is the matter of faith in the Creator of the world,

that they call Him Eloka d'Elokaiya³⁹,

nevertheless,

there is a fundamental difference between the faith of Bnei Noach and the faith of Bnei Yisrael,

to the extent that according to some opinions⁴⁰

Bnei Noach were not warned about shituf.

And the point of the difference is: By Yisrael,

the matter of faith is a result of that which there is in them "a part of G-d from above literally"⁴¹,

that "Havayah is One shines"⁴²

in his soul⁴³,

and since the foundation of faith is not in the existence of the believer

(his intellect and understanding),

but rather that "Havayah is One shines" and is revealed in his soul,

it is understood,

that in him is revealed the true Oneness of the Holy One blessed be He,

"Havayah is One" and "there is none besides Him"⁴⁴

; but not so by Bnei Noach,

that there is not by them a holy soul,

so all their faith in G-d is a result of their perception and comprehension of Divinity,

and since it is founded on their existence,

therefore this faith does not negate

(necessarily)

another existence

(or even another dominion)

besides the Holy One blessed be He.

And for this reason they were not warned about shituf,

because the faith required from them

(according to their ability,

that there is not in them "a part of G-d from above<pg>28</pg>

literally")

it is only that the Holy One, blessed be He, "He is the God of gods."

5.

And behold the difference between these two manners,

is like and analogous to the difference between the two senses of hearing and sight: the definition of sight is that the thing seen is revealed and shines as it is to the person seeing,

namely that there is no perception of the thing seen according to the limitations of the seer,

but rather the thing seen shines to him; but hearing is from a distance,

for when a person hears about a certain thing,

his perception of the thing is by his hearing detail after detail,

and through this the thing is depicted in his mind,

and it is understood,

that this is not a revelation of the thing as it is,

but rather according to the perception of his mind and his understanding.

And so it is regarding faith,

that for a ben Noach,

for whom "Hashem is One" does not shine and reveal itself to them,

but rather they are able to reach faith in Hashem through intellectual proofs etc.,

this is a category of "hearing",

whereas for Israel,

for whom "Hashem is One shines" in their soul,

the matter of faith for them is in the category of "seeing"⁴⁵.

And this is also the hint in the language of the Talmud,

that the example of a blemish that does not disqualify in offerings before the giving of the Torah

(and offerings of a ben Noach after the giving of the Torah on their private altar)

is from the blemish "spots in the eye",

for the matter of seeing Divinity is effected in Israel

(primarily)

at the time of the giving of the Torah,

as it is written⁴⁴

"You have been shown to know that Hashem, He is the God, there is none else besides Him",

"shown literally,

with physical sight"⁴⁶,

therefore,

when the children of Israel offer a sacrifice to Hashem,

it is required of them that the work of offering be with all the faculties and senses,

also the sense of sight,

seeing Divinity.

But not so for a ben Noach, for whom there is no seeing of Divinity,

therefore "spots in the eye...

is not a blemish"⁴⁷.

[And likewise regarding Bnei Yisrael themselves,

that one who is at the beginning of the service,

in a state of "poor" — there is no poor except in knowledge⁴⁸

— and lacks the knowledge of G‑dliness in a manner of "to show to know",

in a manner of sight — no speck in the eye

(in a bird)

is considered by him a blemish.

And on the other hand,

since the revelation of the Giving of the Torah also affected Bnei Noach,

so that the observance of the Seven Noachide Laws must be "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah...

through Moshe Rabbeinu"⁴⁹,

therefore also regarding them there applies at least a semblance of this faith,

and this is that a Ben Noach can bring offerings upon the altar in the Beis HaMikdash

(of Israel)⁵⁰,

and then his offering must be completely unblemished⁵¹].

6.

And behold, just as it is regarding the revelation of the unity of Hashem at the Giving of the Torah,

that through this the matter of partnership is negated

(even though in the state before the Giving of the Torah

(and also among the Children of Noah after the Giving of the Torah),

also the belief in the manner of "God of gods" has no flaw in it)

— so too is it after the Giving of the Torah,

that in the matter of the unity of Hashem itself&lt;pg&gt;29&lt;/pg&gt;

there was revealed in the inner dimension of the Torah a deeper manner in His unity, may He be blessed,

(based on the explanation of the Zohar&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

regarding the matter of "Hashem is the Elokim"),

to the extent that not only does no thing have any dominion whatsoever besides Him, may He be blessed,

but furthermore,

that there is no existence besides Him&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

(and this is the explanation of "There is none besides Him",

that there is no existence without Him, may He be blessed),

to the extent that "There is none"&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

[And in this itself,

in the course of the generations,

there are revealed from time to time in the inner dimension of the Torah deeper manners,

in the understanding of the matter of the unity of Hashem in greater subtlety].

And although before this understanding in the unity of G-d was revealed, it is not applicable to say that the lack of knowledge in this is a matter of deficiency and defect, G-d forbid and G-d forbid,

nevertheless,

after these explanations in the true meaning of the unity of G-d have already been revealed in the world,

behold, one who does not learn and believe in them, this is a defect in his faith in G-d,

and this is, in the finest of fine, a matter of heresy&lt;sup&gt;*54&lt;/sup&gt;

in the unity of G-d.

And along these lines we find in the Rambam who ruled as law&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

that "one who says there is one Master but that He is a body and has a form" — he is a heretic,

and the Ra'avad objected: "And why call this one a heretic? And many great and good people from him followed this thought according to what they saw in the Scriptures and more than what they saw in the words of the Aggadot that corrupt the opinions."

And the explanation of the Rambam's view,

that although there were "great and good" who held that the Holy One, blessed be He, is "a body and has a form" and G-d forbid to call them by the name "heretic",

nevertheless,

after the explanations etc. in the books of the great ones of Israel were revealed and publicized,

that it is impossible to say so and that this is in contradiction to the unity of G-d

(as the Rambam explained in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;),

therefore, now one who holds thus because of the plain meaning of the Scriptures or from what he saw in the words of Aggadot,

behold, he is in the category of "heretic".

And so too it is in our matter,

that after the true explanation of the unity of the Name was revealed in the inner dimension of Torah,

that there is no existence besides Him, blessed be He,

behold, one who does not believe in this is, in the finest of fine detail, a matter of denial of His unity, blessed be He.

And as above — that one cannot bring any proof from this that in the generations before the revelation of the inner dimension of Torah this explanation of the unity of the Name was not known,

and if so, behold it is possible that faith in God can be in completeness also without this knowledge of the unity of the Name,

for before this revelation in the world, in the absence of this knowledge there is no flaw, G-d forbid&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

; but on the other hand,

when "He has made everything beautiful in its time"&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

and the inner dimension of Torah has been revealed,

including also the deep modes in the understanding of His unity, blessed be He,

which are going and being revealed from generation to generation,

behold it is an obligation upon each and every Jew to learn these matters and to believe in them&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;30&lt;/pg&gt;

And the study in these matters is a close preparation for "that&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

time" that "Israel will be&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

great sages and know hidden things and will grasp knowledge of their Creator according to the capacity of man, as it is said&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;

for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea".

(From sichos of Yud Shevat 5713,

Yud-Tes Kislev 5712)