לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - נח ב

Parshas Noach

1. We learn in Tractate Zevachim: "Before the Mishkan was erected, the private altars (bamos) were permitted… and all were fit to be offered: domestic animals, wild animals and birds, males and females, unblemished and blemished, pure… for the verse says, 'And Noach built an altar to G‑d, and took of every pure animal and of every pure bird'… to exclude one lacking a limb… which was forbidden to the descendants of Noach… 'and of every living thing of all flesh' — the Torah said: bring an animal whose principal limbs are alive." That is to say, although for a descendant of Noach there is no prohibition against offering a blemished animal when he offers it on a private altar (and similarly with the offerings before the Giving of the Torah), there is nevertheless a prohibition against offering one that lacks a limb.

At first glance it would seem that a "blemished animal" and "one lacking a limb" are two different categories and prohibitions, for a "blemish" means any defect whatsoever — to the point that there are blemishes that are not due to a missing limb but merely a deviation from a normal limb — whereas "lacking a limb" means just what it says, a lack.

It appears to me, however, that this is not so, based on the precise wording of the Gemara (in the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza). When the Caesar sent an offering to the Jews to be offered on the altar, "as he was coming, he made a blemish in it, on the upper lip — and some say on the cataracts of the eye — a place which for us is a blemish but for them is not a blemish" (and in Rashi: for them it is not a blemish preventing an offering to the Most High on their own private altar; only a missing limb is). From the precise wording "but for them is not a blemish" (and not "it is not disqualifying" or the like), it follows that for the descendants of Noach, too, the disqualification of a missing limb is on account of the category of "blemished"; only that for them, solely one "lacking a limb" is considered "blemished" (and when it lacks no limb it is considered unblemished), whereas for us even "the cataracts of the eye" are a blemish.

This may be explained on the basis of what has been discussed at length elsewhere: there are several levels and modes of wholeness and perfection. This is like our Sages' exposition of the verse "a perfect year" — "to include the intercalated month." Although an ordinary year is also called a (complete) year, lacking nothing, it is nevertheless not "a perfect year"; this title applies only to a leap year, which has thirteen months. That is, the title "perfect" indicates not merely the absence of a lack, but an additional perfection and wholeness (without which the thing would still not be lacking).

We find these two matters within the offerings (of Israel) themselves. In the words of the Rambam: "It is a positive commandment that all the offerings be unblemished and choice." These are two different laws: "unblemished" means that the offering must be whole; and furthermore, it must be "choice" ("the choice of your vows"). The Rambam explains the conditions required for the offering to be "choice" (although even without them it is not blemished).

Accordingly, it may be said that this is likewise the difference between the offerings of Israel and the offerings of the descendants of Noach. In the offerings of Israel (after the Giving of the Torah) an additional wholeness and perfection is required, such that even a defect (or a deviation) in the limb itself is considered a lack and a blemish. Whereas with regard to the wholeness and perfection of the offerings of the descendants of Noach (and likewise the offerings of all people before the Giving of the Torah), only a missing limb falls into the category of a blemish (the opposite of wholeness), while a blemish and defect in the limb itself "is not a blemish."

2. Along these lines we may explain the words of the Rambam regarding a bird offering. He writes: "Blemishes do not disqualify a bird… for 'unblemished male' is said only of domestic animals. When does this apply? With minor blemishes. But a bird whose wing has dried up, or whose eye has been blinded, or whose foot has been cut off, is forbidden for the altar, for nothing lacking at all is offered."

Now, this law (that one lacking a limb is unfit even in a bird) is derived in the Gemara (and likewise in the Toras Kohanim) from the words "of the birds" — "but not all birds." Accordingly, one could say that the law of "unblemishedness" is not stated at all regarding birds, as the plain wording of the Baraisa says, "there is no requirement of unblemishedness… in birds," but that there is a special derivation excluding one lacking a limb even in a bird (as the Minchas Chinuch discusses at length; see there also the practical halachic difference).

The Rambam's words, however, are clear: that one lacking a limb is unfit in a bird is (not because of the derivation from "of the birds," but) because "nothing lacking at all is offered." This law (a) is not specific to birds but is a general rule for every offering, and (b) is derived (as the Rambam wrote earlier) from the verse "they shall be unblemished for you" — meaning that the disqualification of a missing limb in a bird, too, is rooted in the law of "unblemishedness."

This requires clarification: since a bird offering, too, is included in "they shall be unblemished for you," what is the reasoning that it is not subject to the law of "unblemished" which excludes a blemished animal?

Based on the above, it may be said that the Rambam holds that "blemished" and "lacking a limb" are not two separate categories, only one of which (lacking a limb) applies to birds. Rather, the definition of perfection required in a bird excludes only one lacking a limb, and not an ordinary blemish (similar to what was said above regarding the offerings of the descendants of Noach and the offerings before the Giving of the Torah).

The reasoning for this may be explained:

An animal offering is a rich man's offering compared to a bird offering (as in the law of the sliding-scale offering, where a poor man brings a bird offering). Now, the definition of wealth is not merely the filling of a lack (for the rich man lacks nothing), but an additional perfection. As our Sages say regarding the mitzvah of tzedakah: "You are commanded to sustain him according to what he lacks, but you are not commanded to make him rich." That is, although one is obligated to fill all of the poor man's lack [to the extent that "that which he lacks" includes "even a horse to ride upon and a servant to run before him," if he is from a distinguished family and accustomed to this], there is nevertheless no obligation to make him rich. Thus wealth is an additional perfection, beyond the filling of a lack.

Therefore, with a bird offering (a poor man's offering) only a missing limb is considered a lack that contradicts perfection, whereas a minor defect "is not a blemish," and the offering is included in "they shall be unblemished for you." Only with an animal offering, a rich man's offering, does even a minor defect remove it from the category of "unblemished."

3. Based on this point — that an ordinary blemish (which involves no missing limb) does not disqualify in the offerings before the Giving of the Torah (and likewise after the Giving of the Torah in Israel's bird offering) not because there is no law of perfection in them, but because the level of wholeness and perfection required in them is not impaired by an ordinary blemish —

we may resolve (according to the inner dimension of the matters) the question of Tosafos on the wording of the Gemara. Rabbi Akiva rules that blemished animals, "if they were brought up, are not taken down," but only "with cataracts of the eye, since these are fit in birds." Tosafos writes: "It is difficult, for there are several blemishes that do not disqualify [birds, since they are not a missing limb]; why then does it choose cataracts of the eye? And likewise in Gittin [in the story of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza], he could have made a blemish in another place" (and not specifically on the cataracts of the eye or on the upper lip). Tosafos leaves this as a question.

Based on the above it may be said that by this example the Gemara alludes that the inner content of the additional perfection that was newly introduced into the offerings by the Giving of the Torah — because of which "every blemish" is excluded (in Israel's animal offering) — is bound up specifically with the matter of sight.

4. This will be understood from what the Chinuch writes on the root of the reason for the mitzvah "that every offering be unblemished": "Together with what we have set forth… regarding the offerings according to the plain meaning, that they serve to arouse and direct the thoughts of men to the Holy One, blessed be He — for man is affected by the force of his actions — therefore it is fitting in any case that the offering be without blemish. For the thoughts of men do not rest upon and expand over an inferior specimen as they do over a choice one, for hearts are aroused more by what is choice and whole of its kind."

This may be explained more deeply according to the words of Rabbeinu Bachya on the meaning of the word korban, which is from the word kiruv, drawing close; the matter of the offerings "is the drawing close of the faculties and attributes" to the Holy One, blessed be He. Accordingly, it may be said that an offering must be "unblemished," without a blemish, because it must "arouse and direct the thoughts of men" to draw all of one's faculties and senses close "to the Holy One, blessed be He."

This is why, for the descendants of Noach, "cataracts of the eye" are not considered a blemish: for of the descendants of Noach the matter of sight in G‑dliness is not required.

The explanation of the matter:

Although the descendants of Noach, too, have faith in the Creator of the world, for they call Him "the G‑d of gods," there is nevertheless a fundamental difference between the faith of the descendants of Noach and the faith of the Jewish people — to the point that, according to several opinions, the descendants of Noach were not warned against shituf, associating another power with G‑d.

The point of difference is this: For Jews, faith is a result of their possessing "a part of G‑d above, literally," that "G‑d, the One, shines" in their soul. And since the foundation of their faith is not the existence of the believer (his intellect and understanding), but the fact that "G‑d, the One, shines" and is revealed in his soul, it is understood that in him is revealed the true unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, "G‑d is One" and "there is nothing else besides Him." Whereas the descendants of Noach, who do not have a holy soul — all their faith in G‑d is a result of their grasp and comprehension of G‑dliness. And since it is founded on their own existence, this faith does not (necessarily) exclude another existence (or even another dominion) besides the Holy One, blessed be He. For this reason they were not warned against shituf, for the faith required of them (according to their capacity, since they do not have "a part of G‑d above, literally") is only that the Holy One, blessed be He, "is the G‑d of gods."

5. Now, the difference between these two modes is like 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 who sees it; that is, the grasp of the thing seen is not according to the limitations of the viewer, but the thing seen shines to him. Whereas hearing is from afar: when a person hears about a certain thing, his grasp of it comes through hearing one detail after another, and in this way the thing takes shape in his mind. It is understood that this is not a revelation of the thing as it is, but according to the grasp of his intellect and understanding.

So it is with faith. For the descendants of Noach, in whom "G‑d, the One" does not shine and is not revealed, but who are able to arrive at faith in G‑d through intellectual proofs, etc., it is in the category of "hearing." Whereas for Jews, in whose soul "G‑d, the One, shines," faith is in the category of "sight."

This is also the allusion in the Gemara's wording, that the example of a blemish that does not disqualify in the offerings before the Giving of the Torah (and in the offerings of the descendants of Noach after the Giving of the Torah on their private altars) is a blemish "on the cataracts of the eye." For sight in G‑dliness was brought about in the Jewish people (chiefly) at the time of the Giving of the Torah, as it is written: "You have been shown, to know that G‑d is the L‑rd; there is nothing else besides Him" — "You have been shown, literally, with physical sight." Therefore, when the Jewish people bring an offering to G‑d, it is required that the service of offering be with all their faculties and senses, including the sense of sight — sight in G‑dliness. Whereas for the descendants of Noach, who do not have sight in G‑dliness, "cataracts of the eye… are not a blemish."

[Similarly among the Jewish people themselves: one who is at the beginning of his Divine service, in the state of a "poor man" — "there is no poor man except in knowledge" — and lacks knowledge of G‑dliness in the manner of "You have been shown, to know," in the manner of sight, for him cataracts of the eye (in a bird) are not considered a blemish.

On the other hand, since the revelation at the Giving of the Torah affected the descendants of Noach as well — to the point that the fulfillment of the seven Noahide laws must be "because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah… through Moshe our teacher" — therefore something resembling this faith applies to them too, at least to some degree. This is why a descendant of Noach can bring offerings on the altar in the Holy Temple (of Israel), and then his offering must be truly unblemished.]

6. Now, just as with the revelation of G‑d's unity at the Giving of the Torah, through which shituf was excluded (although in the state before the Giving of the Torah (and likewise for the descendants of Noach after the Giving of the Torah) even faith in the manner of "the G‑d of gods" contains no defect) — so too after the Giving of the Torah, within the matter of G‑d's unity itself, a deeper mode of His unity was revealed in Pnimiyus HaTorah, the inner dimension of the Torah (founded on the Zohar's explanation of "G‑d is the L‑rd"): not only does nothing have any dominion whatsoever besides Him, but furthermore, there is no existence whatsoever besides Him (and this is the meaning of "there is nothing else besides Him" — that there is no existence whatsoever apart from Him), to the point that "there is nothing else" [and within this itself, over the course of the generations, deeper modes are revealed from time to time in the inner dimension of the Torah, understanding the matter of G‑d's unity with ever greater subtlety].

And although before this understanding of G‑d's unity was revealed, one cannot say that the absence of knowledge of it is a lack and a defect, G‑d forbid; nevertheless, once these explanations of the true meaning of G‑d's unity have been revealed in the world, one who does not study them and believe in them has a defect in his faith in G‑d — and this is, in the subtlest of subtle ways, a denial of G‑d's unity.

This is similar to what we find in the Rambam, who rules as halachah that "one who says that there is one Master, but that He has a body and form," is a heretic. The Raavad objects: "Why does he call such a person a heretic? Several people greater and better than he followed this thought, according to what they saw in the verses, and even more according to what they saw in the words of the aggados which confuse the mind." The explanation of the Rambam's view is that although there were "great and good" people who held that the Holy One, blessed be He, "has a body and form," and G‑d forbid to call them "heretics," nevertheless, once the explanations, etc., were revealed and publicized in the works of the great sages of Israel that one cannot say so and that this contradicts G‑d's unity (as the Rambam explains in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah), from then on one who holds so because of the plain meaning of the verses or because of what he saw in the words of the aggados is in the category of "heretic."

So it is in our matter. Once the true meaning of G‑d's unity has been revealed in the inner dimension of the Torah — that there is no existence whatsoever apart from Him — one who does not believe in this is, in the subtlest of subtle ways, denying His unity. And as stated above, no proof may be brought from the fact that in the generations before the revelation of the inner dimension of the Torah this interpretation of G‑d's unity was not known — to argue that faith in G‑d can be complete even without this knowledge of G‑d's unity — for before this was revealed in the world, the absence of this knowledge was no defect, G‑d forbid. But on the other hand, once "He has made everything beautiful in its time" and the inner dimension of the Torah has been revealed, including the deeper modes of understanding His unity, which continue to be revealed from generation to generation, it is an obligation upon every Jew to study these matters and to believe in them.

Studying these matters is a direct preparation for "that time" when "Israel will be great sages and will know hidden matters and will attain knowledge of their Creator according to human capacity, as it is said: 'For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of G‑d as the waters cover the sea.'"

(From talks of Yud Shevat, 5713, and Yud-Tes Kislev, 5712)

Key Lesson

A gentile's offering is disqualified only by a missing limb, while a Jew's animal offering is disqualified even by a film over the eye, because since Sinai a Jew's faith is not secondhand "hearing" but "sight" — G‑d's unity shines in his soul, and his offering must engage every faculty, sight included. In the same way, what was no defect before it was revealed becomes one afterward: once the inner dimension of the Torah has disclosed that nothing exists apart from G‑d, every Jew is obligated to study this and believe it. Such study is the direct preparation for the days of Moshiach, when the earth will be filled with the knowledge of G‑d.