Transcript

Then the Ramban here in Vayikra Perek Bais Takrivu

מלמד ששנים מתנדבים עולה בשותפות. קרבנכם מלמד שיבוא נדבת ציבור היא עולה קיץ המזבח הבא מן המותרות

leshon Rashi.

פירוש אף כן לומר שאם יתנדבו רבים להביא עולה עולת השותפין היא. מה בין שנים המשתתפין בקרבן ובין עשרה ואלף שמשתתפו בו. וקיץ המזבח הבא מן המותרות בית דין מתנה עליהן ולפיכך היא עולת ציבור.

So what's the Ramban's diyuk in Rashi? I mean for Rashi just to explain pshat in the psukim lechoreh Rashi should have said that the pshat in the word Takrivu. Right, the posuk begins in the singular, right? אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' and then it shifts to the rabim. אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' bilshon yachid מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן תקריבו את קרבנכם lashon rabim. So the first shift from yachid to rabim is to tell us, again, this first parsha in Vayikra is dealing with olas nedava, is to tell us that olas nedava is not only a yachid but you can have two people can bring it beshutfus. What's the next rabim? So the next rabim is that not only can you have more than one person associated with an olas nedava as a shutfus of yechidim, but you can have it as a tzibur. So lechoreh it would have been enough for Rashi to say קרבנכם מלמד שיבוא נדבת ציבור. Rashi doesn't tell you

מלמד ששנים מתנדבים עולה בשותפות שכל אחד משלם חצי המחיר

or whatever. He doesn't go into the because that's not part of the parshanus hamikra here. So why does Rashi why is Rashi ma'arich to say that it comes from the mosaros from the trumas halishka? So the Ramban says because Rashi is indicating to us that's the only way you can have a nidvas hatzibur. But if you were to take up a collection, so regardless of how many people, again, he's going in a few lines in the efshar he's going to backtrack a little bit here. Well he's going to backtrack in terms of not in terms of the pshat in Rashi but in terms of what he himself suggests as a possibility. But even if you'll have many many many many people contributing, so it just goes from an ola of having two shutfin to having a thousand shutfin, ten thousand shutfin, a hundred thousand a hundred thousand shutfin. Ma she'en kain... The trumat halishka is a fund which is used for korbanot tzibbur. So it's a fund which again is used for korbanot tzibbur, the korbanot chova of all year long, the temidim and the musafim, but לב בית דין מתנה עליהם that it's then used, that the motarot can then be used for the nidvat hatzibbur. And here ledaito, just a little bit more and then we'll try to expand a little bit more here bli neder and with the ezrat hashem. והנה לדעתו כל עולה שיביאו רבים חוץ מן המותרות, if the money for the olah doesn't come from the motarot, from the leftover of the trumat halishka in the next year, דינה כדין השותפין דטעונה סמיכה בכולם ונסכים קרבים משלהם. And ulai, excuse me, meaning there are differences. What difference does it make? Is it just semantics whether you call something a nidvat hatzibbur or whether you call it a nedava, a nidvat hashutfin but with a million, a million shutfin? It's just semantics? No, ve'yesh nafka mina that וסמך ידו על ראש קרבנו, that din applies to a nidvat yachid, it applies to a nidvat hashutfin. The nesachim, since this collection didn't make it a nidvat hatzibbur, so then the same shutfin who are bringing the korban, they have to dip their hands into their pocket to pay for the nesachim as well. And ulai ledaito,

עולת העוף שהיא באה נדבת שנים ואינה באה נדבת ציבור וכן השלמים שאמרו בהם שהשותפין מביאין אותם נדבה,

however

ואין הציבור מביאין אותם נדבה, בכולן יכולים הרבים להתנדב להם בתחילה.

You can take up a collection from all of Klal Yisrael because that collection will still only yield a korban hashutfin, not a korban hatzibbur. דעולת השותפין היא נקראת ושלמי שותפין הם נקראים. Lo mi'atu, and when the din says that there's no such thing as shalmei nedava betzibbur, לא מיעטו אלא שלא יביאו אותם מן הקופה. So here the Rav zecher tzaddik livracha used to point to this Ramban as one of the, I don't call it a proof, call it a reflection of the fact that when you talk about the tzibbur, we're not just talking about a massive partnership of the millions of individual Jews. But the phrase that he used to use in English is that the tzibbur is its own metaphysical entity. It has its own identity. It's its own metaphysical entity. It's something where it's greater than the sum of its parts. It's not just that the tzibbur is shorthand, is a codeword for a partnership which includes every individual Jew. No, there's such a thing, the tzibbur is its own metaphysical entity, its own metaphysical birya. So therefore, you can have every Jew, but maybe it's every Jew as a yachid, every Jew as a yachid part of a shutfus, or you can have all Jews betorat tzibbur. And that's what Rashi is saying, that in order in the context of a korban nedava, in order for that korban to become a korban of the tzibbur rather than of millions of yechidim who are mishtatfin together, so the din is that it has to come from the trumat halishka. That's the pshat. Other rayas that the Rav used to give is the gemara's din as follows, right? There's a halacha lemoshe misinai that the chamesh chatat hametot. That there are five chatat that you can't do anything with, you just have to leave them alone and let them die. And one of them is a chatat shemetu be'aleha. So if Reuven achal chelev and then noda lo that he achal chelev, so he was mafrish a chatas and then he dies before he has a chance to be makriv. the chatas. So there's nothing to do with it. So the Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai is you just have to leave it alone until it dies. חטאת שנתכפרו בעליה באחר, let's say Reuven was mafresh a chatas and the animal got lost. So he was mafresh, he wants the kappara, so he was mafresh another animal. And then they found the first one after having been makriv the second one, again there's nothing to do with it. So chameish chatasos meisos. So the Gemara says that even in theory, not just because it's highly unlikely, but even in theory there's no such thing as if the chatas was a chatas hatzibbur, there's no such thing as חטאת שמתו בעליה בציבור. That's not just because in terms of actuarial tables that people have longer lifespans than animals, but even in theory there's no such thing. Why is there no such thing? In 150 years from now, unless Mashiach comes and lifespans therefore become much, much longer, so no one who's alive today is going to be alive in 150 years from now. So doesn't that mean that the tzibbur will have died and there will be a new tzibbur? No. Here too, you see reflected this yesod that the tzibbur isn't just, again, this massive partnership, but it's its own metaphysical entity. And that metaphysical entity is eternal. It's the same tzibbur of Knesses Yisrael that stood at the foot of Har Sinai is the same tzibbur of Knesses Yisrael that exists today and that will always exist. And that's why there's no such thing, you can't have, that's what the Gemara means when it says you can't have a tzibbur shemeis. So here too the question is, given the fact that just having all yechidim or a majority of yechidim doesn't automatically mean you have tzibbur, because maybe you just have millions of yechidim, so the question is, how did the Torah, what mechanism according to the Torah determines whether something becomes an olas nedava of the tzibbur, or whether it remains an olas nedava of shutfim. So the Ramban says that the mashma'us in Rashi is that Trumas HaLishka is indispensable for that. Now the ve'efshar is not, when the Ramban now raises the ve'efshar, so it's not, he's not retreating again on this distinction between tzibbur and between having millions of yechidim betoras yechidim, he's retreating on the question of how they come together not just as a massive shutfus, but how they can come together as a tzibbur for purposes of a korban nedava.

ואפשר שנאמר שרצו ציבור להפריש מתחילה לנדבה ויקבעו אותו כאשר יקבעו השקלים לתמידים ומוספין שתהיה נדבת ציבור בעולת בהמה ואין בה סמיכה שנתרבה מן הכתוב הזה וכל זמן שישתתפו בו רוב ישראל היא נדבת ציבור ואינה בעולת העוף ולא בשלמים ומיעוטן נידונין כיחידים בדבר והוא העיקר.

So he says no, maybe the Torah would allow if you would sort of simulate the same way you collect the money for the Trumas HaLishka in the first place, if you would simulate that, and what does that mean, that everyone has to give the same amount? כאשר יקבעו השקלים לתמידים ומוספין. Maybe it means that here too it would be stipulated that everyone's giving the same amount. So then if the nedava is al da'as that I'm not giving that as a yachid that I should be a shutaf in this nedava, but I'm rather giving as part of the tzibbur to help underwrite an olas tzibbur, that that too would work. And here in the Perush Al HaTorah, the Ramban is noteh to that. The Rav used to mention that the Ramban in Milchamos in Brachos takeh says differently. L'chora it's not a stira because the Ramban in Milchamos is primarily interested in just explaining the Rif, not necessarily putting his own views. How does it come up in Brachos? So in the sugya of tefillas nedava in the third perek, so the Rif writes that the Rambam has like this also, that ein hatzibbur... if you want to daven Mincha a second time or you want to daven Mincha Gedola but you don't want to be yotzei with that because you want to daven Mincha Ketana like the shitas HaRambam, so you can daven an extra tefilla and it's a Tefilas Nedava. So the whole institution of Tefilas Nedava only exists beyachid. There's no such thing as Tefilas Nedava betzibur. Why not? Because אין הציבור מביאין נדבה. אין הציבור מביאין נדבה. That's what the Rif writes. So the Ba'al HaMa'or is masig on the Rif and says, what do you mean אין הציבור מביאין נדבה? He quotes the same Toras Kohanim that Rashi says about the olos keitz hamizbe'ach and says כל הש"ס מלא מזה, some such lashon. So the Ramban says, I don't know what he's talking about. He says this is the only example in kol HaShas. It's not, I don't know what the Ba'al HaMa'or is referring to and he says aderaba since this is the only example, the pshat is since this is the only way to have a nedava, the tzibur can never initiate a nedava. Let's say there are no, let's say there are no leftovers from the terumas halishka, so the tzibur cannot initiate a nedava. If you hold like this Rashi on the Torah, so yes, it's true that there's such a thing as a חפצא של עולת נדבת ציבור that's kareiv as such, but it's also true that the tzibur can't completely initiate that at will because if there's no leftover from the terumas halishka, so then they wouldn't be able to do it. So there the Ramban sticks with what he initially infers from Rashi. It's not, again, the Ramban would be entitled to change his mind, but lichora it's not even that, it's that there he's saying pshat in the Rif and here he's telling you his own opinion. It's nifla me'od. I think the judgment of history is that after the Rambam, that the Ramban is the greatest of all the Rishonim, which is you know, if you say someone is the tallest amongst the giants, you know it's different than just saying he's the tallest one in the room. He's the tallest amongst the giants and he spent so much of his time and energy just defending the chachmei hamesora who preceded him. Whether it's in Milchamos defending the Rif, whether it's in the Hasagos in Sefer HaMitzvos defending the Behag. It's nifla me'od, such a so great and so whatever, it's ridiculous for us even to talk about it and you know, his own genius and creativity and he expended so much just saying pshat in the chachmei hamesora who preceded him. This yesod of the Rav about tzibur having its own identity and that's the pshat in the Gemara in Temurah that you don't have a, you can't have a tzibur de'shameis, so it underlies other halachos also. So let's say again we'll take another example from Berachos, so we pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua that tefillas arvis reshus, but the Rishonim all record that kvar shavyuha lachova. So who, who did that? Who did that? I don't know about you, but no one ever consulted me. What do you mean already, already כבר שוויוה עליהו חובה? So the answer is that at some point, Knesset Yisrael, the rov minyan u'binyan, made such a commitment. So why does that carry over? Why does that bind us? So lu yehei that you didn't have the rov's yesod, presumably it wouldn't. I don't know, maybe it would be betoras a person shouldn't diverge from minhag avosav, but it's clear that it's a much stronger chiyuv than just the din that a person should follow, you know, familial minhagim. So the teretz is because we're the same Knesset Yisrael. We're the same Knesset Yisrael. So we, Knesset Yisrael, were mekabel that Tefillat Arvit should be treated as chova. And same thing is true on a microcosmic level when you have a community, let's say, in America this hasn't really so much been, I don't know whether it's really been reestablished, recreated, but in Europe it was yadua that there were certain piskei halakha that were accepted in different communities. There were certain piskei halakha in Vilna, that in Vilna they had a kabbalah that you paskin this way on this, this way on that. And that remained binding. Why? Because this yesod is also true for a microcosm of the tzibbur. It's not only when you have a kabbalah of Knesset Yisrael in general, but it's true for a microcosm. If you have a kehillah in Vilna, so that also, the kehillah in Vilna in the 19th century is the same kehillah as the kehillah in the 18th century, even though all the yechidim that you can meet in the batei midrashos are different, not the ones who had been alive a hundred years earlier. The Meshech Chochma has this idea also. Meshech Chochma has in on the haftarah Shabbos Chazon, לא תוסיפו הביא מנחת שוא קטורת תועבה היא לי. So why does the navi single out ketores and menachos? Right? לא תוסיפו הביא מנחת שוא קטורת תועבה היא לי. So Rav Meir Simcha says beautifully. He says that a mincha, נפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה, that a mincha is not brought beshutfus. You can be shutfim in a korban beheima. You can't be shutfim in a korban mincha. But there is such a thing as minchasom niskemat u'medubbar, there is such a thing as menachos for the tzibbur. But there's no such thing as beshutfus. So he says the vort is like this. So he says as long as there's achdus amongst Klal Yisrael, so then they, they live in a way that reflects this idea again of the metaphysical entity of tzibbur. But when it's איש את רעהו חיים בלעו and then when they don't act as a tzibbur, so then the mincha becomes a minchas shav because you can just look at them as a bunch of yechidim. A bunch of yechidim, you have no right to bring a mincha beshutfus. Similarly he says by ketores, so the chelbenah which was one of the Yud-Aleph samamim, so Chazal say it was rei'ach ra. So what was it doing in the ketores? Well, if you mixed it in with the other ten samamim, so then as part of the mixture it contributed. But if it stands alone. So here too ketores requires that we act as a tzibbur. But if we're not acting as the tzibbur, then the chelbenah, you know, if we act as individuals then the as it were the sa- The Sammanim don't coalesce to be one either, and then the Chelbenah just stands out, so then it becomes a Ketoret To'evah, but he has the same the same Yesod in terms of in terms of Tzibur. Okay, we'll stop.