By Avrohom Aharon HaKohain Lipszyc
Boruch Hashem
Index of Content
- The Sicha: The Sicha is a lesson in the sicha, filed with notes keeping the flow of the sicha clear, notes marked with an asterisk giving explanations to concepts the Rebbe is using in the sicha, and an organization and layout with brackets and indentions, allowing for the reader to first read the primary flow of the sicha, and returning to see what the Rebbe is enriching the sicha with, as outcomes of what the sicha is creating.
- Footnotes: The Rebbe’s sichas are renowned for its Footnotes as well as for its primary text. Often this takes learning the sources the Rebbe cites, and then deep study of what the Rebbe is saying. Here the reader will find explanations to the Footnotes that help understand what the Rebbe is seeking to teach with the Footnote.
- The Appendix: The Rebbe is extremely precise as to what is quoted and what isn’t quoted into the sicha. However, often, reading the entire source is necessary to fully understand what the teaching is saying, and why is its correlation or extrapolation upon the flow of the sicha.
- Bottomline: This serves as a flowchart only of the primary stream of the sicha. Questions or details that enforce the steam of the sicha are left out here. After learning the sicha, going through this portion helps to solidify the primary message of the sicha.
- Detailed Flowchart: This serves as a flowchart of the entire sicha. Doing so in brevity, point by point.
Boruch Hashem
The Sicha
Boruch Hashem
*Footnote numbers correspond with those of the sicha. Missing numbers are cited sources, placed in parentheses within the text. See “Sicha Footnotes” for the footnotes and their explanation
Note: The sicha deals with a ruling of Maimonides, the reasons commentaries give to the ruling, and then the Rebbe necessitates and gives a deeper additional understanding to the reasoning of the law, by giving a deeper meaning to the argument in the Talmud over the matter. Please refer to the APPENDIXES when needed, in other to see the sources the Rebbe is referring to.
Maimonides, in the Laws of Ma’asei HaKorbonos (the doings of offerings) writes (-16:1), “When a person vows to bring a large animal, but instead brings a small one, he does not fulfill his obligation. [If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation. How so? He said, ‘I promise [to bring] a lamb (one in the first year of its life) as a burnt-offering,’ or ‘... as a peace-offering,’ and he brings a ram (one that is more than one year and one month old), or he vowed a calf (one in the first year of its life) and brought an ox (one in the second year of its life), or a kid (one in the first year of its life) and brought a goat (one in the second year of its life) , he fulfills his obligation.”
The Kesef Mishneh defines the source of Maimonides as the words of the Mishna (-Minochos 1407b), “If one vows (to bring a) large (bull),’ and he brought a small (bull) --according to all opinions-- he has not fulfilled (his obligation). (But if he vows to bring) a small (bull),’ and he brought a large (bull) --there is a dispute of opinions: according to the Rabbis,-- he has fulfilled (his obligation), Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says, ‘He has not fulfilled (his obligation),” and Maimonides rules like “The Rabbis”
And the reasons as to why Maimonides brings the examples of, “a lamb... and he brings a ram... a calf and brought an ox, or a kid and brought a goat,” because Maimonides’ ruling of, “a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation,” is only when the small and the large are of the same species, but not of two different species, as he explicitly emphasizes further throughout the chapter.
Question: How is he fulfilling his obligation of bringing a ram when he vows, “I promise [to bring] a lamb (one in the first year of its life) as a burnt-offering,’ or ‘... as a peace-offering,’” when there is the commandment (-Deuteronomy 23:24), “That which you utter with your lips you shall heed, and you will do as you have promised (to G-d your L-rd, which you have spoken with your mouth).” Being that he promised, “a small one,” as for example, “a lamb,” it is upon him to fulfill his promise, “and you will do as you have promised.” And when he brings, “a large one,” for example, “a ram,” in place of, “ a lamb,” he did not fulfill the, “and you will do as you have promised”?!
And there are two ways to explain this:
(a) From the perspective of the “person”
the one who made the vow: When a person vows to bring a small one, it is logical to say that his intention was not that he specifically bring a small animal, and not a big one, but rather, that he not bring less than a small one. His intention was that he bring at the least a small one. And therefore, when he brings a large one, he has fulfilled his vow, for to this too he intended.
(b) From the perspective of the “object”
Albeit that one who vows, says and intends for a small one --a lamb and the likes--, however, (-Rashi, Minochos 108b (and the Rebbe cites other sources as well)), “within the many is included the few” --as that of (-Baba Kama 74a (and the Rebbe cites other sources as well)), “there is within 200, 100”-- and therefore his vow was fulfilled, only that he added on to his promise, and thus, his promise was fulfilled.
Note: Often the discussion in explaining the deeper dimension of the reasoning to a law the format is to see the concept from two different perspective, (i) that of the person fulfilling the mitzvah, meaning the person’s having to do that which is to be done. and (ii) from the perspective of the object of the mitzvah, meaning the mitzvah that has to be done.
Note: The Rebbe sets the grounds for the need of an additional layer of explanation.
However, this explanation does not suffice: Before the Mishna that states this dispute, there is a previous Mishna (-Minochos 104b) that states a similar dispute:
“(If one says), ‘I specified a meal offering of tenths (of an ephah --Eipha: 22 litres; 20 dry quarts) but I do not know how many (tenths) I specified,’ he must bring (a meal offering of) sixty (-tenths of an ephah). Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says, ‘He brings meal offerings of all sizes, (in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging) from one-tenth (of an ephah) to sixty (-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs).”
The Talmud (-106b) in given the reason for this dispute, after bringing numerous opinions, states:
“Rav Ashi said, ‘They disagree with regard to (one who is obligated to bring) a small (offering) and (instead) brings a large (offering). The Rabbis hold that if (one is obligated to bring) a small (offering) and brings a large one (instead) he has fulfilled his obligation --(Rashi: “And this or he did not vow but three tenths and brings five for his vow, he fulfills his obligation.”)--, and Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) holds he has not fulfilled his obligation.”
The Talmud questions:
“But they disagreed about this (topic) once? As we learned ‘(If one vows to bring a) small (one) and he brought a large (one instead), he has fulfilled his obligation. Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says: He has not fulfilled his obligation.”
The Talmud answers:
“It is necessary (for the dispute to be mentioned with regard to both cases), as had (their dispute) been stated (only) with regard to this (case of one who vows to bring a small meal offering and brings a large one instead, there would be room to reason that it is only) in this (case that) the Rabbis say (that he has fulfilled his obligation,) because (both) this (small meal offering) and that (large meal offering are identical with regard to the portion of the offering that is sacrificed on the altar; in both cases) it is a handful. But there, (in the case of one who vows to bring a small bull but brings a large one,) since the sacrificial portions are greater, (i.e., larger, there is room to) say (that the Rabbis) concede to Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi that he has not fulfilled his obligation).
“And had (their dispute) been stated (only) in that (case of one who vows to bring a small bull and brings a big one, there would be room to reason that only in that case) Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says (that the person has not fulfilled his obligation, because the sacrificial portions are larger). But in this (case of bringing a large meal offering instead of a small one, there is room to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) concedes to (the opinion of) the Rabbis. (Therefore,) it is necessary (for the mishna to teach both cases.)”
Question: (i) (concerning the perspective of the “object”) Being that there is an opinion that because of, “since the sacrificial portions are greater, and we can say that this is not what he vowed,” and they do not say the reasoning of, “included in the many (the large animal) is the few (the small animal),” thus, it is not logical to say that the innovation in the law, “small and he brought a large,” is because, “included in the many is the few?!” And (ii) so too, it is not clear to say that the innovation (concerning the perspective of the “person”) that the person, “so did he vow” (to be okay to bring the large, just that he not bring less than the small), when this is not what he said?!
Thus, These two reasons do not suffice, and we still need to understand how when, “small and he brought a large,” one is fulfilling, “and you will do as you have promised”!
Question II: According to the two above-mentioned explanations (i) that the person only limited the minimal amount that he will offer, and (ii) that, “there is included within the many the few.” - it is logical to say that when “one vows a small one” it is permissible to begin with bring “a large one.”
And being that (-Maimonides, Laws of Issurei Mizbeach 7:11), “one who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing. For it is written in the Torah (-Genesis 4:4), ‘And Abel brought from his chosen flocks and from the superior ones’... And so too it is stated (-Leviticus 3:16), ‘All of the superior quality (should be given) to G-d.’” And more than this, concerning offerings it is said that one is to bring (-Deuteronomy 12:11), “of the choicest of your vow.”
Now, if we are to accept the two above mentioned reasonings, seemingly the outcome is, that when vowing a small one, one must from the beginning (it be best done so) to bring a large one, and at the least, it is befitting to do so (to bring the large one), due to, “All of the superior quality (should be given) to G-d.”
However, from the wording of Maimonides, “small and brought large, he fulfills his obligation” --(which doesn’t even express here as it does by the donation (Laws of Ma’ase Korbonos 16:6, “if he wants he may bring...”)--, as the language of the Mishna (-Minochos 108a), “(if one vows,) this lamb is (hereby) a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its (redemption) money,” is understood that this is not a law of “from the outset,” meaning that “it be best done so,” but rather, one of, “post facto, in worst scenario,” if he already did so, then he has fulfilled his obligation?!
Note: The Rebbe will now quote from the Chinuch concerning a specific offering, and the Rebbe will then explain why this does not apply to our case.
--[Concerning the “sacrifice that varies up and down” that is brought for four specific sins (-see Appendix VII) the Chinuch states (-Mitzva 123): “...But if he is poor and he brings a ewe or a female goat, he has not fulfilled his obligation. And the reason is that since G-d, blessed be He, had mercy upon him and exempted him with [something less expensive], it is not appropriate that he push himself to bring more than what his hand can reach.”
Boruch Hashem
However, this concept does not apply here because, there we are speaking of:
- an offering that is obligatory by the Torah, and thus is to be only performed exactly as prescribed by the Torah, while here we are speaking of a voluntary offering, created but by the person’s vow.
- The sacrifice that varies up and down, has different species for the wealthy in his “up” (an animal) of the sacrifice, and for the poor in his “down” (poor: fowl, and very poor: flour) for the sacrifice. And as explained earlier, Maimonides rules that even by a voluntary offering one can change the species of his vow.
Thus, the reasoning of the Chinuch for the sacrifice that varies up and down cannot be applied to our case of, “small and brought large”]--
And from this is understood that when a “person” vows a small one his intentions are not also for a large one. And so too concerning the “object” the “large one” is not included within the “small ones”. --[And it is understood the difference between this instance and that of, “included in 200 is 100,” because in that ruling we are speaking of the essence existence that within 200 coins there are 100 coins. However, in our case, when performing the sacrificial offering of an ox there is not within the ox a existence of a calf.
Thus, the question returns: What is the reason for the law “one who vows to bring a small one and brings a large one has fulfilled his obligation”?
Note: The Rebbe will now explain a different concept, which serves as the introduction to the reason the Rebbe is presenting for the entire dispute between The Rabbis and Rebbi, and through this the reasoning of Maimonides’ ruling.
In order to understand this, we are to first explain the wording of Maimonides in his opening to the Laws of Vows: “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth and to carry out one’s vow.”
There seems to be an unnecessary lengthiness of wording and a duplicity of wording here: (i) “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth,” and (ii) “and to carry out one’s vow”?
Note: Maimonides’ format in his Mishneh Torah, aka Sefer HaYaD, is that before he begins the laws on any topic, he will first list the amount of mitzvot, those of the 248 Positive Mitzvot and those of the 365 Prohibitions.
For example, by the Laws of Vows, Maimonides states (-see Appendix VIII):
“They contain 3 mitzvot: two positive commandments and one negative commandment. They are....”
And to point out that in the Counting of the Mitzvot (-Positive Mitzvah #94) in the beginning of the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides writes only one concept, “For a person to fulfill all which he gives out with his lips (i.e. utters), be it a sacrifice, (a gift to) charity, or the likes, as it is stated (-Deuteronomy 23:2): “What you have given out with your lips (i.e. spoken), take heed and fulfill...,’” being that there Maimonides’s format is to be as brief as possible.]--
Note: Maimonides’ format in his Mishneh Torah, aka Sefer HaYaD, is that after his introduction he lists the 613 Mitzvot, first the 248 Positive Mitzvot and then the 365 Prohibitions, quoting by each the verse in the Torah of the mitzva (afterwards, Maimonides lists the 613 Mitzvot --without their appropiate verse-- as they divide within his 14 Volumes of the Mishneh Torah, each mitzvot to their chapters of laws, which them become the “openings” of each set of laws, as mentioned in the previous note.)
Albeit this wording of Maimonides is aligned with the verse, “(i) That which you utter with your lips you shall heed, (ii) and you will do as you have promised,” and the way of Maimonides is to quote the wording of the verse, however, nevertheless, it is a bit hard-pressed to say as such here, if there not be any legal outcome from the lengthiness and duplicity of his wording.
Thus, it is logical to say that this is not just a mere duplicity of wording, but rather, there are two different obligations and laws here:
- That one heed that which his lips uttered (“That which you utter with your lips you shall heed”).
- To do that which he promised to do (“and you shall do as you have vowed”).
The explanation to this is: In every vow there are two concepts: (i) The words of your mouth - the words that was said by the mouth of the one who vowed. (ii) The content of the vow - the understanding of the vow and its intention.
And these are the two concepts within the verse: (i) “That which you utter with your lips you shall heed,” the words spoken by the mouth, and (ii) “That which you utter with your lips you shall heed,” the intent of the vow.
Note: The Rebbe will now explain how these two different concepts within every vow are the reasonings of The Rabbis and Rebbi, in their disputes.
With this we can explain the dispute between Rebbi and the Rabbis concerning, “one who vowed a small one and brought a large one,” whether (The Rabbis) you have fulfilled your obligation, or (Rebbe) you have not fulfilled your obligation The dispute is dependent upon how you categorize the obligation of, “and you shall do as you have vowed.”
Rebbe: We consider only with the, “the utterances of your lips,” and the content of the vow, “as you have vowed,” is defined in accordance with the formulation of the vower, the words of his mouth.
The Rabbis: The primary issue at hand is the, “and you shall do as you vowed,” to fulfill the intention of the vow, regardless that this is not all that aligned with the words of his mouth, “the utterances of your lips.” Meaning, fulfilling the vow precisely as, “the utterances of your lips,” does not hinder.
--[And each, Rebbi and The Rabbis follow their all-encompassing opinion, as we find in numerous places throughout the Talmud concerning the disputes between Rebbi and the Rabbis, concerning the language found in the Torah, teachings of our Sages, and even the wording of people (-See Appendix X in which the Rebbe brings an example of each, from the different themes of the Six Orders of the Mishna). In Which the opinion of Rebbi is that the intention is as per the practical simple meaning of the wording and all its details, while according to The Rabbis is that there is no necessity to accept the practical simple meaning of the wording and all its details, but rather, that it be in accordance to the their general content alone.]--
Note: The Rebbe will now zoom into their dispute of our case, “one who vows to bring a small one and brings instead a large one.”
And so too it is in our case of, “(one who vows to bring) a small (one) and brings (instead) a large (one)... ‘Upon me (is to bring)... a lamb and he brought a ram”:
From the perspective of, “that which your lips have uttered,” thus, he had said, “Upon me (is to bring)... a lamb,” which does not include within it a ram, as explained earlier. However, from the perspective of the content of the vow, it is a vow to G-d, upon which we have the commandment, “all the fattest is for G-d,” and “the choicest of your vow.” Thus, his intention is to give an offering to G-d from the species of sheep. His utterance of his mouth “lamb” was only due to a side issue that he could not afford more, or the likes, however, his intention in saying “a lamb” is that it be from the species of sheep.
Therefore: According to the opinion of Rebbi, that we consider but the “utterance of your lips” thus, with his bringing a large one instead of a small one, he did not fulfill his obligation. For his vow was of a small one, thus, how can he fulfill the obligation of his vow in bringing a different offering, which is not the “utterance of his lips, but a large one?
However according to The Rabbis we primarily consider the intent of the vow, “and you shall do as you vowed,” and therefore, regardless of that to beginning --in the best manner of performing the mitzvah-- we don’t tell him to bring a large one (a ram in the place of a lamb --albeit the ram is the “fattest is for G-d,” and the “choicest of your vow,”), for it is stated in the verse, “the utterance of your lips you shall heed,” thus, to begin with --in the best manner of performing the mitzvah-- he needs to bring “as the utterance of your lips.”
However, when he does bring a large one, he fulfills the mitzvah of the Torah, being that the detail of, “the utterance of your lips,” does not hinder the fulfillment of, “and you shall do as you(r intention of) have promised.”
Note: The Rebbe will now zoom into Maimonides’ ruling in accordance with The Rabbis.
In order to explain better Maimonides’ ruling in accordance with The Rabbis we will need to first explain what Maimonides writes in Laws of Vows (-1:4):
“It is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin for a person to fulfill his oath or vow, whether it be a vow involving prohibitions or a vow of sanctification, as it is stated (-Deuteronomy 23:24), ‘that which your lips give out (utter) heed, and do as you have promised.’ And it is stated (-Numbers 30:3), ‘As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do.’”
The difference between the two verses that Maimonides quotes here is that the verse, “that which your lips give out (utter) heed, and do as you have promised,” speaks of deals with vows of sanctifications, while the verse, “As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do,” deals with vows of prohibitions. We see this within the writing of Maimonides himself, that when he quotes (-Counting of Mitzvot, beginning of Sefer HaYaD) only the verse, “What you have given out with your lips (i.e. spoken), take heed and fulfill...,” he writes that, “For a person to fulfill all which he gives out with his lips (i.e. utters), be it a sacrifice, (a gift to) charity, or the likes,” but nothing of vows of prohibitions.
And according to what we said prior, it is understood that the difference between to language of the verses, that of the vows of prohibitions it states only, “As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do,” while concerning the vows of sanctifications the verse states two details, “(i) that which your lips give out (utter) heed, (ii) and do as you have promised.”
The difference between the vow of prohibitions and the vow of sanctification is:
Vow of Prohibition:
the prohibition is created only by the words of the person. For, if not for his words, no prohibition would exist. For Example, the vow of, “I will not drink any wine.” Therefore, the obligation of these vows is to fulfill, “As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do,” for it is his words that creates the prohibition.
Vow of Sanctifications:
The vow itself causes that the obligation written in the Torah befalls the person. For the obligation itself --once it befalls the person through his words-- is that of an offering to G-d, or that of charity, which are (offerings to G-d and giving charity) obligations of the Torah. Only, being voluntary offerings, the obligation to do so befalls the person only once they make a vow to do so. However, the concept of an offering to G-d can only exist being that it is a (voluntary) obligation of the Torah.
--[As explained in great breadth (-Likkutei Sichos, Vol 29 p. 36-7) the words of Maimonides ant the end of Laws of Vows (-13:25), “Our Sages stated (-Nedarim 22a), ‘Anyone who takes a vow is considered as having built a private altar (called a ‘bama’, which is forbidden since the time that the Holy Temple was built in Jerusalem).’ And if he transgressed and took a vow, it is a mitzvah to ask (a sage) to absolve it, so that he will not have an obstacle before him. When does the above apply? With regard to vows involving prohibitions. However, with (regard to) vows involving the consecration of articles, it is a mitzvah to fulfill them and not to ask for them (absolution) only out of being (financially) pressed, as it is stated (-Psalms 116:14), ‘I will fulfill my vows to G-d.’”
That concerning vows of sanctifications, not only does the obligation of the vow befall him, but (once he makes the vow) also the obligation of the Torah befalls him, that of an offering, of charity, and the likes. Thus, here is created an Object of a Mitzvah, and thus, “and not to ask for them (absolution).”]--
And therefore there exists by the vows of sanctifications --according to Maimonides who rules like The Rabbis-- also the law of, “and you shall do as you vows.” That we fulfill the vow when the intention of the vow is carried out (the offering to G-d, or charity, etc.), even when it is no precisely as the, “that which your lips uttered.”
