And He called to Moses, etc. The alef of vayikra [and He called] is small, as if it said “vayikar” [and He happened upon]. The reason for this is to equate Moses’ prophecy with that of Balaam, about whom the term vayikar is used, as it is written (Sifri Berachah 39) And there has not arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, but among the nations one did arise, and who was he? Balaam. This does not mean that Balaam was equal to Moses in prophecy, God forbid, but rather this is the interpretation: Moses attained more than what he was worthy of attaining based on his preparation, as it is written whom the Lord knew (Deuteronomy 34:10). It does not say “who knew the Lord,” but rather to tell you that from his own preparation, he did not know the Lord in this manner, but rather the Lord knew him and gave him additional divine abundance in Israel meaning for the merit of Israel. And all other prophets of Israel each did not attain more than their preparation warranted. But among the nations of the world, one arose for the honor of Israel who attained more than what he was worthy of attaining based on his preparation. Now, it is known that whatever a prophet attains that is appropriate to him according to his preparation, that prophecy adheres to him essentially, and what is essentially acquired remains attached and does not separate from him. But whatever one attains beyond his preparation is contingent to him and not essential, and it is only a gift from God. Therefore, the term vayikar is applied to both Moses and Balaam to indicate that they were equal in this aspect, in that both of them had a contingent attainment beyond what was appropriate to them based on their own essence.

And with this is resolved what Rashi explained, that vayikar [ויקר — “he encountered”] is a language of casualness and impurity, and one of these would have been sufficient to distinguish between vayikar and vayikra [ויקרא — “he called”]. However, since Rashi also believes that Moses’s prophecy was contingent and not inherently from his preparation, this raises the difficulty: why wasn’t vayikar written without an aleph at all? Therefore, he comes to explain that the term vayikar“ suggests both casual occurrence, meaning happenstance, and also suggests impurity, which is completely inappropriate regarding Moses, heaven forbid. Therefore, the aleph was written for Moses to exclude him from the language of impure chance. Nevertheless, a small aleph was written to be read as vayikar indicating that even Moses’s prophecy was casual and contingent, in that it exceeded his preparation as mentioned, and the opposite cannot be said at all. It is possible that this is the view of the Midrash, as concluded in Yalkut (431) on this verse, which states: ”One might think that God spoke with Moses for his own sake; therefore Scripture says to say — it was for Israel’s sake that He spoke with him, not for his own sake.“ This Midrash requires explanation, for how could it occur to anyone to say that the speech regarding all the commandments was for Moses alone? Did he alone hear I am and You shall have no other gods? Rather, certainly it refers to the levels of prophecy, that Moses merited vayikar — meaning a contingent prophecy that was added to him beyond his preparation, that God spoke with him face to face for the sake of Israel and not because of his own essence. This is what is meant by ”for Israel’s sake He spoke with him“ — for their needs he merited this addition, and not for the sake of his own essence, as it is written And there arose no prophet in Israel. The letter ”bet“ in b’Yisrael serves as ”for the sake of.“ Therefore, when Israel sinned, Moses was told Go down from your greatness, meaning from this additional divine flow that was given to him for Israel’s sake. And after the forgiveness, it needed to be explained that Moses returned to his former state, as it says And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face (Exodus 33:11). And this explanation is precious.

In the Yalkut it concludes why children begin to learn from the section of sacrifices, just as the sacrifices are pure, so too are the children. This is explained according to what the Yalkut concludes in the portion of Pinchas (28:3) that lambs [kevasim] in their first year wash away [mekavsim] a person’s sins and make him like a one-year-old child. Because of this, the alef [in the word “Vayikra”] is small, hinting that small children should begin [their learning] here, and this learning is at the beginning, like the alef is at the head of the letters. Another explanation: “alef” is a term for learning, as in I will teach you [aalefekha] wisdom (Job 33:33), hinting that learning only endures in one who makes himself small [humble]. It also hints that Moses merited this calling because he made himself small and fled from authority, saying I am not a man of words (Exodus 4:10), as concluded in the Yalkut (427).

A person when he brings from you an offering to the Lord. It begins in singular language and concludes in plural language: you shall bring [plural] your offering. What Rashi explained — that it teaches that two people can donate a burnt offering in partnership — is insufficient to reconcile the verse from beginning to end, for we do not know where the matter transitions. It seems to me that [the Torah] wanted to caution all who bring offerings to the Lord not to stumble in two matters in which Cain and Abel erred, who were the first to bring offerings. Cain erred in bringing from the inferior and worst, which was flax seed, and those who sin with their souls need to bring an animal soul in exchange for their own. With difficulty, the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted a poor person to bring a meal offering, which has no soul, and He considers it as if he offered his own soul, as Rashi explained on the verse And when a soul brings a meal offering (Leviticus 2:1). And Abel, although he brought from the firstlings of his flock, nevertheless did not act properly since he was not inspired to bring the offering on his own initiative and was not alacritous for this commandment on his own. Rather, after he saw that Cain brought an offering, then he became envious of him and Abel also brought an offering to equalize himself to him, as explained above in Genesis.

Therefore it states, “When a man [adam] from among you brings an offering,” in the singular form, to tell you that the one who brings an offering should be like Adam, the first man, in his offering, since he was alone in the world. Just as in this respect he was saved from theft because he was alone and everything belonged to him, similarly in this respect he was saved from the matter in which Abel stumbled, because being alone in the world, he certainly was inspired to bring the offering on his own and not because he saw others doing so. And regarding this it says, When a man — when he will be like Adam — brings an offering from among you, meaning that the bringing should be from you and not from others, for from you and within you should come the inspiration to the one who brings the offering. This is an offering to the Lord, for certainly his intention is only for the sake of Heaven. This excludes one who is not inspired on his own — this is not from you and not an offering to the Lord. It is not from you because the inspiration came to him from others and not from you, from the one bringing the offering himself. And it is not an offering to the Lord, for anything done out of jealousy of one’s fellow is done only to glorify oneself before others, and thus it is not an offering for the sake of Heaven but for the sake of people. And this is [the understanding of] what was said (Shabbat 28b): “The ox that Adam, the first man, offered had one horn on its forehead.” This is why an ox with one horn was made available to him, because it was similar Adam who had “one horn” — meaning that he was alone in the world and did not steal from anyone, and was not inspired by anyone, but only by himself, that is, from you. Therefore, his offering was accepted favorably. Thus, an offering to the Lord interrupts the matter. And afterward it says, from the cattle, etc. to exclude flax seed, rather one should do like Abel who brought from the firstborn of his flock. And what it says, you shall bring your offering, means from their fat, the choice part that a person chooses for himself, which is called your offering — that you should offer to the Most High. And it uses your offering in the plural form, as Rashi explains, to say that two people can bring one animal [as an offering].

And there are those who say, “A man who sacrifices from among you” [means] literally from his body, through fasts and a broken spirit — this is an offering to the Lord and solely the portion of the Divine. However, what you sacrifice from the animals, from the cattle, this is your offering, because you are the ones eating from your peace offerings — the priests and the owners. Therefore, it [the verse] uses your offering in the plural form because it is not solely the portion of God.

“When a man [adam] brings [an offering].” Rashi explains, “This passage speaks about voluntary offerings. ”Why does it say ‘adam’ [man]? Just as Adam did not offer from stolen property…“ Rashi first provides an explanation for when he brings and afterward for the word adam [man]. That is since, initially, there was no difficulty with why the word adam is stated, as one could say it comes to exclude gentile nations who are not called adam, from whom obligatory offerings are not accepted. But now that it says ”when he brings,“ indicating that it speaks of voluntary offerings, and our Sages taught (Nazir 62a) any man [ish ish] includes gentiles who make vows and voluntary offerings like Israelites. If so, why does it say adam? Rather, [it teaches that] just as Adam did not offer from stolen property. The phrase ”from stolen property“ requires explanation, for it should have said ”did not offer a stolen item.“ It seems that Rashi’s view is that it is not the way of the world for someone to go and steal an animal and then offer it to the Most High, for we are not dealing with fools, and who would be so simple-minded as to commit a sin in order to perform a commandment with it when they gain nothing from the sin? However, it is indeed found that a person might steal a large sum of money or commit injustice involving much wealth, and then go and give some of that stolen money to charity or for an offering with this scheme that they devised, thinking that this would serve as atonement for the remainder that is in their possession. This is the meaning of ”from the stolen property“ and not all of it, similar to how they interpreted from the animal (Temurah 28b) and not the entire animal.

We find that this portion’s beginning, middle, and end are a warning about theft. Its beginning is When a person brings an offering, its middle is and he shall remove its crop with its feathers, because birds feed from theft, and its end is and he shall return the stolen item. This is because offerings and theft are two opposites, for offerings bring the Divine Presence closer while theft distances it, as it says Because of the plundering of the poor… ‘Now I will arise,’ says the Lord (Psalms 12:6). Furthermore, one who offers his animal is as if he has offered his own soul, because a person’s possessions are like his soul, as he brings his bread with his soul, and as it is written, For he is taking a soul as a pledge (Deuteronomy 24:6), and it is written And He will rob those who rob them of [their] soul (Proverbs 22:23). And part of the soul is like the whole. But how can one who offers a stolen animal, which he did not labor for and his hand did not work for, be a substitute for his soul?

From the beast, from the cattle, and from the sheep. Here is a place for me to find desired words and reasoning for all the divisions of sacrificial offerings that come for atonement. For an anointed priest and the Sanhedrin offer a bull as their sacrifice, an individual offers a sheep or goat, and in the case of a sliding-scale offering, a poor person brings two turtledoves, and in extreme poverty, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. This is because every sinner and rebel appears as if they had horns to gore either upward or to the sides, as all transgressions are either between man and God, blessed be He, or between man and their fellow man. Through transgressions between man and their fellow, a person is compared to a horned ram that gores northward and southward to harm their fellow, either in longevity of days [which is to the right], or in wealth and honor [which is to the left]. Therefore, they bring a ram in their place, or a sheep or goat, as it is written And behold, a ram after [achar, which is spelled the same as acher, different] being caught in the thicket by its horns (Genesis 22:13). This means that this ram is different from the first one, because this person has the horns of a wild ox with which they gore nations. By law, the sinner deserves to be judged by being skinned, cut up, and completely consumed by fire, but through God’s mercy upon them, He rescues them from this destruction and takes a different ram in their place. For this reason, the ram was specifically caught in the thicket by its horns, because similarly, the person deserves to be caught for death because of their horns, but is redeemed from destruction through this ram by the mercy of the Blessed One, and the substitution is a ram for a ram.

However, the one who sins against Heaven, is similar to one who has a horn of strength between their eyes rising straight upward, as if they wish to gore upward, so to speak. This follows the explanation of Rashi in Parshat Lech Lecha (14:2) regarding Shemever. Therefore, our Sages said (Shabbat 28b) that the ox that Adam offered had a single horn on its forehead. How did our Sages know to say this? If it is because it says more than a horned [bull] (Psalms 69:32) [which is written with a missing letter, implying one horn], perhaps the horn was on one of the sides, so how do we know it was on its forehead? Rather, certainly because Adam was alone in the world and did not sin against any creature except against God alone. Therefore, Adam resembled the form of an ox that has one horn on its forehead, because from there it rises upward. For so did he act like an animal and thought to be like God, knowing good and evil, which is like goring upward. Therefore, he needed to bring as his substitute an ox with one horn, and it was made available for him at that time, so that the substitute would resemble in every aspect the form of the sinner and his rebelliousness.

And perhaps for this reason. He was provided with a bull whose horns preceded its hooves (Chullin 60a), because the hooves are close to the ground and the way of an animal is to cause damage also with its foot and to spoil the land. Likewise, through his sin, man caused the corruption of the land, as it is said, Cursed is the ground because of you (Genesis 3:17). However, the corruption of the land stems from the sin of the horn that preceded it. Therefore, he was provided with a bull whose horn preceded its hooves, and instruction was given to his heart that all these properties were fitting for the sinner, and through this, a person will come to a broken spirit, for this is the desired purpose of God’s sacrifices, as it is written, Behold, to listen is better than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22). The commentators explained that the main benefit derived from the sacrifice is to listen to the voice of God, because God did not primarily and initially command matters of burnt offerings and sacrifices but rather for what follows from them, which is to listen to the voice of God. And about this it is said, I said to the boastful, “Do not boast,” and to the wicked, “Do not lift up the horn. Do not lift up your horn on high” (Psalms 75:5-6). First it says horn and then your [plural] horn, implying two [horns], because initially it warns them about the more severe sin of raising one horn upward to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterward it warns them not to sin against each other with two horns facing right and left. Therefore it says lift up on high, repeating the language of lifting, because this is the way of an animal to lift its horns somewhat at the time of goring. Even though for future generations the commandment came that even for a sin between man and God, one should bring an animal with two horns, that was after the giving of the Torah, when all Israel became guarantors for one another, and one who sins against Heaven causes the corruption of others, like Achan who sinned alone and caused the downfall of all Israel. And goring is more applicable to creatures and makes an impression on them than it does against Heaven, for if one’s transgressions multiply, what does it do to Him, blessed be He? But Adam, who was alone and there was no other person to receive harm from him, therefore he needed to bring [an animal] with one horn, even though goring is not applicable to Heaven.

And according to that which is greater than its fellow, its goring makes a greater impression and it is harder to find a remedy for its wound because it is great. Therefore, these distinctions come regarding those who bring sacrifices: Because the anointed priest and the Sanhedrin — their goring makes a great impression, whether in divine beliefs or in other matters; therefore, their sacrifice is a bull, whose goring is greater and more dangerous than the goring of a sheep or goat. But for other individuals whose goring is not so great, their sacrifice is a sheep or goat or ram. And specifically for the wealthy person who answers with arrogance and relies on his abundant possessions and his great strength to gore to the north and south, not turning back from anything. But the poor person whose strength is diminished, therefore his goring is not so great, and he resembles a bird that strikes with its wings to the right and left, in the way that it uses its limbs to fly and jump and rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore, his sacrifice is turtledoves and young pigeons, for he himself is among the pursued like the turtledoves, and nevertheless he strikes at others, as it is written The sound of a driven leaf shall pursue them (Leviticus 26:36). For the leaf itself is driven by the wind that strikes it, and nevertheless it pursues and strikes others, as will be explained in its place. And because the wings are the place of sin, therefore it says, And he shall tear it apart by its wings. And for the poorest of the poor who is considered like dead, as if he has no vital spirit, therefore his sacrifice is a tenth of an ephah of fine flour from plants that have no vital spirit at all.

If his offering is a burnt offering of cattle, he shall offer it an unblemished male. The reason why the burnt offering is brought as a male, and the sin offering as a female, and the peace offerings can be either male or female, is because the burnt offering comes for what arises in your spirit, that is, for the sin of impure thoughts, as it is said And he would offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all, for Job said, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts” (Job 1:5). The sin offering comes for the sin of action. It follows that one who contemplates a transgression but does not carry out his thought into action is certainly “mighty in the land,” for his strength is like a man’s, conquering his evil inclination, as the thought did not go outward to perform its strange deed; therefore his offering is a male. But one who sins also in deed, his strength is weakened like a female’s, for he was not able to stand against his evil inclination; therefore his offering is a female, similar to him. And since both the burnt offering and the sin offering come for sin which originates from the heart, for a deceived heart has turned him aside (Isaiah 44:20), and the wicked are under the control of their heart, which is located on the left side, therefore their slaughter is in the north. But the peace offerings, which run without iniquity, their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and there is no distinction between male and female for them.

Furthermore, the olah offering comes for the sin of improper thoughts, which depends on the intellectual faculty of man, who is compared to the male, for the intellect is the primary part of the household and its master. Therefore, his offering is a male, and the olah is completely burned for the Most High, corresponding to the spirit of humans that ascends oleh upward. So too is the olah offering upon the altar, for the nature of fire is also to rise upward.

But the sin offering comes for a sin of action, which is done through the instruments of action that are dependent on the material that is acted upon like a female; therefore its offering is a female. And the main sin is dependent on specific organs, primarily the fat and the blood, and by them will be all disputes and all afflictions. For through the boiling of the blood all day, one will desire forbidden things, as it is written When your soul desires (Deuteronomy 12:20), and it is written For the blood is the soul (Deuteronomy 12:23). And similarly, when Yeshurun grows fat and fatness bulges from their eyes (Psalms 73:7), and their fat has closed their mouth (Psalms 17:10), then one is especially predisposed to sin. Therefore, from the sin offering, the fat and blood are offered, and the meat is eaten by the priests as a form of charity to feed the poor servants of our God, for through kindness and truth sin is atoned.

And the peace offerings make peace in the world, because a portion goes to the altar, a portion to the priests, and a portion to the owners. And they all eat at one table, which demonstrates the peace between all of them, for there is no aspect of sin in it that would cause strife between God and His people. There is a distinction between the sin offering and the burnt offering, because the sin offering only comes for unintentional sins, meaning what a person does without intention, while the burnt offering atones for deliberate thoughts, meaning [those done] with intention. For example, one who thinks about a woman and knows that it is forbidden to think about her, but his heart compels him. Therefore it is said, He shall bring it/him of his own free will before the Lord, meaning that it atones even for willful [thoughts] as mentioned. And from the extra word it/him [in the verse], some interpret that Scripture considers it as if he offered himself before God.

And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering. The verse mentions one hand, while regarding the scapegoat it is written, And Aaron shall lay both his hands. Ramban explained that even the laying of hands on the burnt offering was done with both hands. But what can I do, since the verse clearly mentions only one hand? What seems most probable to me is that every sin of thought is without action, but every sin of action is not without the thought that precedes the action. Without this prior thought, one would not intend to sin at all, and it would be considered accidental rather than unintentional. Therefore, for the burnt offering which comes for thoughts alone, it is sufficient to lay one hand to transfer the blemish and taint of the sin of thought onto the animal. But for the scapegoat which bears the iniquities of the children of Israel — both sins of thought and action — Aaron laid both his hands upon it to transfer the blemish and taint of these two types of sin.

And so we find in the portion of Pinchas (Numbers 27:18) regarding Joshua, that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Take for yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man who has spirit within him, and you shall lay your hand upon him — implying one hand. But in practice it is stated (Numbers 27:23): And he laid his hands upon him — implying two hands. Similarly here, in the command it says and he shall lay his hand, but in practice it is written: and Aaron shall lay both his hands. And likewise in the portion of Pinchas, the passage about the daily burnt offering is placed next to Joshua’s appointment, to tell you that just as the regular offerings bear the guilt of the people — for the morning daily offering atones for sins committed at night, and the afternoon daily offering atones for sins committed throughout the day — and this is the reason for the laying of hands, to place the taint and blemish of all Israel upon the offering, so too the leaders of Israel are a guilt offering for the people, as our Sages learned (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 1:13) from the verse and I will make them heads over you — that the guilt of the people is dependent on their leaders. And this is the reason for the laying of hands upon Joshua, saying: “Behold, the guilt of the people is dependent upon you, both sins of action and sins of thought.” And this specifically applies to “a man who has spirit within him” like Joshua, who knows how to go against the spirit of each and every person, for he is able to see through the holy spirit that is upon him all that comes upon the spirit of each and every person. And when he sees in someone that a spirit of confusion has been drawn into them, not the spirit of God (1 Kings 19:11), then it is incumbent upon him to turn them from their way, to rebuke them, and to chastise them. And if he does not rebuke them, then the sin is dependent on him. But a person who does not have spirit within him and cannot go against the spirit of each and every person is not held accountable for the sins of thought of their fellow, for the hidden things belong to the Lord our God (Deuteronomy 29:28), and none of us knows the extent of our fellow’s spirit and thoughts.

Therefore it is said, “Take for yourself Joshua son of Nun, a man who has spirit within him.” He is able to walk with the divine spirit that is upon him in accordance with the spirit of each person, and he also knows their hidden matters. Therefore, it is just that he should bear upon himself the iniquity of the people, even that which arises in their thoughts. And this is the meaning of what was said, And you shall lay your hand upon him, for otherwise, what connection does a man who has spirit within him have to and you shall lay your hand? Rather, certainly one depends on the other. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not need to command him to lay a second hand upon him in order to place upon him also the taint and blemish of the sinful actions of the people, because it is obvious that if it is in his power to turn many away from the iniquity of sinful actions and he does not do so, it is clear that he shall bear the sins of many. And from this, Moses learned that at the time of laying hands, he laid both his hands upon him to place upon him the guilt of the people, whether they sin in thought or whether they sin in deed. And this is precisely like the sacrifice upon which hands are laid, which bears upon itself the guilt of the people, and all of Israel is cleared. This is a precious interpretation. And regarding what is written, And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him, the simple meaning is that this laying of hands is the essence of the atonement, through which he places his guilt upon the animal.

And by way of allusion we can say, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering includes the entire burnt offering, both the animal, which is the burnt offering upon the altar, and the person receiving ordination [semikhah] who is elevated to some position for the reason that has been explained. However, given the magnitude of the punishment placed upon the person receiving ordination, who would be foolish enough to turn here to receive ordination since it is not worth the damage? Therefore it says, and it shall be accepted for him — that they will presumably be willing to accept it in order to atone for them, as it concludes in Sanhedrin (14a): “Rabbi Zeira was hiding to avoid being ordained. When he heard that Rabbi Elazar said, ‘Always be submissive and accept,’ and when he heard Rabbi Elazar’s statement that ‘A person does not rise to greatness unless all their sins are forgiven,’ he made himself available [for ordination].” And this is a precious interpretation.

Before the Lord and he shall lay [his hands]. Rashi explained that there is no laying of hands on a bamah [private altar], because bamah implies height, and our Sages said (Sotah 4b) that anyone who is arrogant, it is as if he built a bamah, as it is said, Cease from man, in whose nostrils is breath, for in what [bameh] is he to be accounted (Isaiah 2:22), do not read in what [bameh] but “a high place” [bamah]. For anyone who builds a bamah for himself, his spirit is high and coarse upon him [is arrogant], as we find in the language of our Sages (Chagigah 22a), “so that each person should not go and build a bamah for himself.” Therefore, it is not before the Lord for two reasons: First, because the Divine Presence only dwells in a place where humility is found, as it is said, I dwell with the crushed (Isaiah 57:15), as was explained above at the end of Parashat Yitro (20:19) and in Parashat Miketz (49:1), that the Great Name indicates the essence of humility, and the matter of the bamah will be explained, God willing, later in Parashat Matot regarding our Sages’ statement (Nedarim 22a), “Anyone who makes a vow, it is as if he built a bamah.” Second, because the Divine Presence only dwells in a place where all of Israel is in one group, and everyone gathers to one sanctuary, and not at a time when each person goes and builds a bamah for himself, like the parable of the two ships that they connected to the verse, Who builds His upper chambers in the heaven and has founded His vault upon the earth (Amos 9:6) (Yalkut Shimoni, Amos 548). Therefore, the sacrifice of the bamah does not completely remove sin, and therefore there is no laying of hands on it.

“And the sons of Aaron the priests shall put fire.” Even though fire descends from heaven, it is a commandment to bring [fire] from ordinary sources in order to mix the fire from above with the fire from below, and to judge the sinner in two courts of law, in order to atone for thoughts about the type of sin that should be judged in the heavenly court, and for thoughts about the type of sin that should be judged in the earthly court. This is the reason for Sustain me with raisin cakes [ashishot] (Song of Songs 2:5) — two types of fire [esh] — for I am sick with love — these are the sins, the sickness of the soul that affects the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, and He is healed through these two fires.