PARASHAT VAYIKRA

By Rav David Silverberg

            Among the korbanot discussed in Parashat Vayikra is the korban mincha, or meal offering, which was normally brought by the poor.  The mincha was far less costly than animal sacrifices, and it was established to enable those with limited means to offer a sacrifice in the Mikdash.  Furthermore, certain offenses (listed in 5:1-4) require bringing a korban oleh ve-yoreid – a sacrifice that depends upon the violator’s financial status.  The wealthier offenders bring a sheep or goat, while the less advantaged offer two birds, and a destitute sinner earns atonement through a small meal offering.

            The Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 3) makes an intriguing remark concerning the mincha offering.  According to one view recorded in the Midrash, “The Almighty showed our patriarch Avraham all the means of atonement, except for the tenth of an efa [brought as a mincha].”  The Midrash refers here to God’s comments during the berit bein ha-betarim (Bereishit 15:9), which the Sages interpreted as foretelling the institution of the korbanot.  In response to Avraham’s request for reassurance that his descendants would endure even if they sin, God informed the patriarch of the korbanot, through which Benei Yisrael would achieve atonement for their wrongdoing.  According to this view, however, when telling the patriarch about the sacrifices, God chose not to disclose the information concerning the korban mincha.

            Why did God decide to conceal this information, and what message does this Midrash seek to convey?

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests that Avraham would have been dismayed to learn that poverty would plague the nation he founded.  The foundations of Kelal Yisrael, built by our righteous patriarch, are the values of kindness and sensitivity.  In the nation he envisioned, there would be no need for special provisions for the sacrificial offerings of the poor – because one’s family, community and friends would ensure that he never reaches a state of poverty.  Rav Ginsburg cites in this context a ruling in the Shulchan Arukh (Y.D. 380:2) regarding the prohibition against working during aveilut (mourning):

Throughout the first three days, it is forbidden for him to do work – even a pauper supported by charity.  Thereafter, if he is poor and has nothing to eat, he may do [work] privately in his home… But the Sages said, “May a curse befall his neighbors who made it necessary for him to do this!”

It is inconceivable that a Jewish community member would be forced to work during his week of mourning because he would otherwise starve.  Halakha strongly condemns a community whose members fail to care for one another, and allow one of their own to plummet to such depths of destitution.

            By the same token, the Yalkut Yehuda explains, Avraham Avinu would have been utterly ashamed by his descendants had he known that there were those who enjoyed luxuries and excesses while their brethren withered in poverty.

            The Midrash thus teaches that although the Torah made arrangements to accommodate the poor members of the nation who wish to offer sacrifices, this does not mean that we may resign ourselves to the reality of poverty.  It is a problem that we, as a nation, must collectively confront and resolve to the very best of our ability – just as our patriarch Avraham would have wanted and, in fact, demanded.

*******

            Parashat Vayikra introduces the different types of individual sacrifices, beginning with the three kinds of voluntary offerings (ola, mincha and shelamim).  It then proceeds to discuss the mandatory sacrifices, which are required in certain situations of wrongdoing.  The first of this type of sacrifice which the Torah addresses is the par kohen mashi’ach – the bull that the kohen gadol would bring as a sin offering if he inadvertently transgressed a sin punishable with kareit (eternal excision).

            In describing the procedure for this sacrifice, the Torah lists the fats from the bull that are to be burnt upon the altar.  These parts of the animal have already been listed earlier, in the context of the korban shelamim, whose fats are also burned upon the altar.  (The difference between the two sacrifices lies in the fact that the kohen gadol’s sin-offering is then burned outside the Temple, while the meat of the shelamim is eaten.) Interestingly, the Torah makes a point of emphasizing this point of resemblance between this sin-offering and the shelamim offering: “…just as is separated from the ox of the shelamim offering” (“ka’asher yuram mi-shor zevach ha-shelamim” – 4:10).

            Torat Kohanim interprets this verse as reflecting a broader parallel between these two offerings: “Just as shelamim brings peace to the world, this [sacrifice], too, brings peace to the world.”  The term shelamim is viewed as a derivative of the word shalom, and refers to the peace and camaraderie this offering engenders.  The offering of a shelamim was a festive occasion, which occurred not as a result of a transgression, but rather for the purpose of thanksgiving or celebration.  The kohanim as well as the individual bringing the offering partook of the sacrificial meat, and friends and relatives were often invited to join and take part.  Torat Kohanim inferred from this verse that the kohen gadol’s sin-offering, too, has a similar effect of “bringing peace to the world.”  How might we explain this outcome of the kohen’s offering?

            Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, suggests that the kohen gadol’s offering yields this effect because it sets a critical example of integrity and admission of guilt.  It was common among other faiths for religious leaders to view themselves and be viewed by others as infallible and never subject to error.  The situation of a kohen gadol who confesses wrongdoing and works toward achieving atonement demonstrates that all people are prone to mistakes, and one should therefore not hesitate to come forward, acknowledge guilt, express remorse, and seek to rectify his misdeed.  This offering “brings peace to the world” because it narrows the gap that would otherwise separate the masses from the spiritual leaders.  This enables the people to gain inspiration and take example from the kohen gadol, to not be deterred from confessing and repenting – thus making the world a far better and more peaceful place.

*******

            The Torah in Parashat Vayikra (2:11) introduces the prohibition against including leaven or honey in sacrificial offerings on the altar: “All meal offerings that you sacrifice to the Lord shall not be made into leaven, for you shall not offer anything from leaven or honey as an offering by fire to the Lord.”

            In the “pitum ha-keroret” section of the prayer service, which discusses the preparation of the ketoret (incense) offered in the Temple, we find the following comment:

Had one placed in it [the incense] even a minuscule measure of honey, nobody could have resisted its scent.  Why, then, would they not mix honey into it?  Because the Torah said, “for you shall not offer anything from leaven or honey as an offering by fire to the Lord.”

The Sages here note that honey could have significantly enhanced the scent of the incense, yet was not included as one of its ingredients, because of the prohibition against offering honey on the altar.

            A number of writers noted the peculiarity of the question posed in this passage: “Why, then, would they not mix honey into it?”  The prohibition against placing honey on the altar appears explicitly in the Torah.  Why is it necessary to inquire into the reason for excluding honey from the ketoret?  Is it not readily obvious that the Torah forbade offering honey?

            The simplest answer, perhaps, is that this passage is a variation of a comment found in Torat Kohanim to this verse.  Torat Kohanim raises the possibility that the prohibition introduced here refers only to offerings that would not be enhanced by the addition of honey: “I know only [that the prohibition applies to] things for which honey is not beneficial.  From where [do I know that it applies to] things for which honey is beneficial… The verse states, ‘ve-khol devash’ [‘any honey’].”  It is only because of the additional term “ve-khol” that the Sages concluded that honey may not be added even to offerings that it would enhance.  Otherwise, we might have interpreted the verse as banning honey only in situations where it would offer no benefit to the sacrifice.  Quite possibly, the passage from pitum ha-ketoret is simply another version of this discussion. It initially proposes that honey should be allowed with the ketoret because the prohibition relates only to sacrifices that honey would not enhance, and it then concludes, based on a careful reading of the verse, that honey may not be included in any offering, regardless of its contribution.

            Rav Menachem Benzion Zaks, in his Menachem Tziyon, notes the broader implications of this halakha, namely, that we may not transgress one mitzva to enhance a different mitzva.  We do not reserve the right to raise the standards of our performance of one mitzva at the expense of another Torah law.  The ketoret was indeed intended to produce a pleasant fragrance in the Mishkan, but this did not mean that all ingredients that achieved that effect could be used; we may not disregard other Torah laws in order to enhance the ketoret’s fragrance.  It is far preferable to observe a mitzva at its basic level rather than strive for a higher level at the expense of other mitzvot.

*******

            The first section of Parashat Vayikra is devoted to the subject of korbanot nedava – the voluntary sacrifices which Benei Yisrael are allowed to offer.  This category includes the korban mincha – a meal offering that was generally brought by the underprivileged, who could not afford an animal sacrifice – and two kinds of animal sacrifices: ola and shelamim.  A korban ola would be burnt entirely on the altar, whereas the shelamim was divided among the altar, the kohanim and the individual offering the sacrifice.  Selected fats from the sacrifice were burnt on the altar, the kohen received the breast and thigh, and the individual offering the sacrifice partook of the rest of the meat, usually with family and friends, in Jerusalem.

            Interestingly, the ola and shelamim differ from one another also in terms of the kinds of animals that one may offer.  In the first chapter of Sefer Vayikra, the Torah allows for three different kinds of ola offerings – from cattle, sheep and birds.  When it comes to the shelamim sacrifice, however, the Torah speaks only of offering cattle, sheep or goats.  One who wishes to offer a shelamim does not have the option of offering a bird sacrifice.

            One possible reason for this distinction relates to the festive nature of the shelamim offering.  The meat of the shelamim was usually eaten as part of a celebration, such as a thanksgiving feast.  Meat of cattle and sheep is generally viewed as a greater expression of joy and festivity than poultry; thus, for example, many authorities require eating specifically red meat on Yom Tov to fulfill the obligation of simchat Yom Tov (rejoicing on the festival).  Similarly, the festive nature of the shelamim sacrifice required specifically animal meat, rather than poultry.

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch explains differently, based upon the possible symbolic significance of the bird sacrifice.  On the basis of a number of verses elsewhere in Tanakh, Rav Hirsch asserts that birds serve as a symbol of “a fugitive existence, threatened by danger, threatened by dire necessity, and defenseless.”  He notes as well that bird offerings are usually required in cases of undesirable physical conditions, such as the metzora, zav and zava.  Rav Hirsch therefore postulates that bird offerings express “a precarious, suffering, unhappy condition,” and are brought by an individual who finds himself in such a condition.  This easily explains why birds are suitable for the solemn context of the ola offering, but not for the festive event of shelamim.  As Rav Hirsch writes, “For the shelamim idea, the idea of a complete undisturbed happy condition, is the very opposite of that which is expressed by a bird offering.”

            Rav Amnon Bazak (Shabbat Be-shabbato, Parashat Vayikra, 5765) suggested a different reason why birds may not be used as a shelamim offering.  It stands to reason that birds were brought as an ola in a case where somebody could not afford a cattle or sheep offering.  Indeed, later in this parasha, the Torah speaks of the korban oleh ve-yoreid sacrifice which was offered in certain instances of wrongdoing, and the nature of the sacrifice depended upon one’s financial status.  The Torah writes that ideally, one should bring a sheep or goat (5:6), but if he could not afford an animal, then he would offer two birds (5:7).  The bird offering was thus the less desirable option that the Torah offered for those who could not afford the preferable sacrifice.

            This may likely explain the difference between the ola and shelamim.  Although the ola is a voluntary offering, the Torah makes explicit reference to its function as bringing atonement (1:4), indicating that it is brought for the purpose of earning forgiveness.  The Torah did not wish to deny the less privileged the opportunity of atonement, and it therefore allowed for an inexpensive bird offering (just as it allowed the mincha offering for the destitute).  Since the ola served the necessary function of atonement, the Torah found a way to allow all members of the community to offer such a sacrifice.  The shelamim, however, is brought as a purely voluntary offering to God, as an expression of well-being and festivity, and the Torah therefore demanded the highest quality sacrifice, without making arrangements for those who could not as yet afford an animal offering.

*******

            In the second verse of Parashat Vayikra, God introduces to Moshe the concept of a personal sacrifice: “A person among you who offers a sacrifice to the Lord – [if it is] from an animal, then you shall offer your sacrifice from cattle or sheep.”

            Commenting on this verse, the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 2:1) writes, “This is what [is meant when] it says, ‘Ha-ven yakir li Efrayim’ (‘Is not Efrayim a precious son to Me’ – Yirmiyahu 31:19).  The Midrash draws an association between the opening of Sefer Vayikra, which introduces the concept of personal sacrifices, and Yirmiyahu’s famous prophecy of consolation in which God expresses his eternal love for Benei Yisrael.  How might we explain this association?

            A cursory glance at this prophecy in Sefer Yirmiyahu indicates that the prophet speaks here of the return of the Northern Kingdom, the ten tribes that had been exiled by the Assyrian Empire.  (This point is developed at length by Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, in discussing the haftara of the second day of Rosh Hashanah.)  Although Yirmiyahu prophesied many years after the Northern Kingdom’s downfall, and his prophecies related primarily to the current situation of the Judean Kingdom, this prophecy appears to be directed toward the ten northern tribes.  Yirmiyahu here speaks to “Efrayim,” the tribe from whom the founder of the Northern Kingdom – Yerovam ben Nevat – hailed, and the name by which the Northern Kingdom is occasionally known.  Moreover, he foresees the restoration of the vineyards in “harei Shomron” (31:4) and “har Efrayim” (31:5) – the hills of Samaria, the heartland of the Northern Kingdom.

            Likewise, Yirmiyahu here famously describes the weeping of our matriarch, Rachel, who bemoans the exile of her descendents and then receives God’s assurance of their return (31:14-16).  The tribe of Efrayim – the most prominent of the ten northern tribes – of course descended from Rachel’s son Yosef, and she therefore weeps over the banishment of her descendants from their homeland.

            The Midrash perhaps saw in God’s promise of the Northern Kingdom’s restoration a model for the concept of korban, the possibility of restoring one’s relationship with the Almighty that had been strained by sin.  However one chooses to understand the concept of a sacrifice as a means of drawing near to God, the word korban itself – a derivative of the root k.r.v., “closeness” – indicates that this is indeed its primary function.  The plight of the lost tribes, and God’s promise of their return, exemplifies God’s eternal love for and mindfulness of His people regardless of how are they have strayed, or for how long.  Indeed, toward the beginning of this prophecy (31:2), Yirmiyahu cites the people’s exasperated cry, “The Lord appears to me from afar,” and then God’s immediate response, “but I have loved you an eternal love, and have therefore drawn you [to Me] with kindness!”

            Chazal thus drew an equation between the ten tribes and an individual seeking to repair his strained relationship with God.  He, too, is assured of God’s unending love toward him despite what may have transpired, and is therefore encouraged to seek atonement through teshuva and his offering a sacrifice to God.

            (We follow the straightforward reading of Yirmiyahu’s prophecy, according to which the ten lost tribes are destined to return and rejoin the Judean Kingdom.  The question surrounding the fate of the lost tribes is actually subject to a debate among Chazal, and lies beyond the scope of our discussion.)

*******

            Among the laws of sacrifices presented in Sefer Vayikra we find the requirement of semikha – placing one’s hands on the animal’s head.  The act of semikha is required whenever an individual offers a personal animal sacrifice, with the exception of bekhor (one’s firstborn animal), ma’aser (animal tithe) and korban pesach (see Menachot 92a).

            What is the meaning and significance of semikha?

            In Sefer Bamidbar, we find two instances where a person or group of people performed semikha on another person or group.  In Parashat Beha’alotekha (8:10), we read that as part of the formal consecration of the Leviyim for their role in the Mishkan, Benei Yisrael laid their hands upon the Leviyim’s heads.  Later, in Parashat Pinchas (27:18), we read that Moshe rested his hands upon the head of his disciple, Yehoshua, when he was formally designated as Moshe’s successor.  In both these contexts, semikha expresses the designation of somebody to fill another person’s role.  Benei Yisrael formally appointed the Leviyim as their representatives in the Mishkan, and Moshe designated Yehoshua as his successor.

            The act of semikha performed on an animal sacrifice likely serves a similar role.  The Ramban (1:9) famously explained the notion of an animal sacrifice as intended to bring to a person’s mind the fate he deserves on account of his wrongdoing.  By placing his hands upon the animal, the individual symbolically designates the animal as his “substitute” whereby he is placed on the altar in the individual’s stead.

            Alternatively, we might explain the concept of semikha on the basis of the Torah’s description of the sa’ir la-azazel, the “scapegoat” which symbolically transports the nation’s sins into the wilderness on Yom Kippur.  The Torah writes (Vayikra 16:21) that before the goat is brought into the wilderness, the kohen gadol places his hands upon its head and confesses the nation’s sins.  In so doing, the Torah says, “he places them [the nation’s sins] upon the goat’s head.”  It appears from this description that the act of semikha symbolically transfers the weight and burden of sin from the person onto the animal.  This might very well hold true regarding ordinary sacrifices, as well.  A person who brings a sacrifice for the purpose of atonement performs a symbolic act reflecting the transfer of his sin onto the animal, which then brings the sin with it onto the altar.

            This understanding of semikha can also be applied to the cases described above, where semikha signifies a formal designation of a person or group for a certain role.  Benei Yisrael conferred upon the Leviyim, and Moshe conferred upon Yehoshua, the responsibilities and obligations of their respective leadership positions, and this conferral is expressed through the act of semikha.

            It should be noted that these approaches to semikha work off the assumption that all sacrifices that require semikha serve to earn atonement.  A number of sources suggest that the shelamim sacrifice is not brought for the purpose of atonement, but rather as an expression of joy and festivity.  Others, however, including Netziv, in his Meromei Sadeh (Zevachim 29b), claim that the shelamim brings atonement like the other personal sacrifices.  Clearly, if we view semikha as designating the animal as a substitute for the individual, or as transferring the burden of sin onto the animal, then we must seemingly ascribe the goal of atonement even to the shelamim, since the shelamim requires semikha just like other offerings.

            Chizkuni, in his commentary to Parashat Vayikra (1:4), offers a different explanation of semikha: “According to the simple understanding, this is the common practice among people: when they wish to begin involving themselves in a certain activity, they prepare themselves to do it by placing their hand upon it.”  It seems that Chizkuni viewed semikha as the symbolic initiation of the sacrificial process.  Placing one’s hand over an object meant the formal beginning of the activity performed with that object, and thus, in the context of sacrifice, it signified the formal initiation of the offering.  Thus, according to this view, semikha does not relate to the role or purpose of the sacrifice, but simply marks the formal beginning of the procedure.

*******

            Parashat Vayikra begins by discussing the korban ola, a voluntary offering that was entirely burnt upon the altar.  Chazal noted that in introducing this topic, the Torah curiously shifts from the singular to plural form.  It begins by speaking of “a person among you who offers a sacrifice to the Lord,” but then concludes in the plural form – “takrivu et korbankhem” (“you shall offer your sacrifice”).  Torat Kohanim infers from the plural form that an ola sacrifice can be offered as a nidvat tzibur – a national, voluntary sacrifice.  The simple reading of this passage indicates that Am Yisrael as a nation can collectively bring a voluntary ola sacrifice.  This is the explanation given by the Ramban in his Torah commentary, and by the Rash Mi-Shantz and Rabbenu Hillel in their respective commentaries to Torat Kohanim.

            Others, however, explained differently.  Rashi, as well as Midrash Ha-gadol (in Torah Sheleima to this verse), understood this passage as a reference to the olat keitz ha-mizbei’ach.  In the interest of ensuring a constant presence of sacrifices on the altar, the Temple treasury would use the surplus sacrificial funds (which were collected through the mandatory machatzit ha-shekel tax) for the purchase of ola offerings.  These offerings were brought on behalf of the entire nation and placed upon the altar, and Rashi claims that it is to these offerings that Torat Kohanim refers when it speaks of an ola brought as a nidvat tzibur.  The Ramban, in his Milchamot Hashem to Masekhet Berakhot (13a in the Rif), ascribes this reading to the Rif.

            Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, presents a much different theory to explain the Torat Kohanim’s comments.  He contends that the korban ola was customarily offered during an eit tzara, during times of trouble or crisis.  When an individual confronted a personal crisis, he would offer a personal ola sacrifice and, after the sacrificial rituals were performed, he would pray to God for assistance during his time of need.  However, in situations of national crisis, such as war, drought and the like, the nation would turn to a righteous individual to pray on their behalf (as in the famous stories told in the Gemara of Choni Ha-me’agel and Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa).  This individual would also bring an ola offering which, while having the formal status of a personal sacrifice, was offered on behalf of the entire nation.  Netziv mentions as an example of this practice the sacrifice offered by the prophet Shemuel on the nation’s behalf when they came under attack by the Pelishtim (Shemuel I 7:9).  This sacrifice, Netziv explains, is a personal offering brought for all Am Yisrael, and Torat Kohanim had this particular kind of ola offering in mind when it spoke of a nidvat tzibur.  Although the nation cannot collectively bring a voluntary offering, they can ask a righteous individual to offer a personal sacrifice on their behalf, and this is what was in fact done during periods of national crisis.