The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

The name used to refer to the priests varies throughout sefer Vayikra. In parshat Vayikra, there is an inconsistency between two consecutive pesukim that is addressed by the Rabbis. In describing the first sacrifice of the sefer, the Torah writes, "And the sons of Aharon, the priest, shall put the fire upon the altar…. And the sons of Aharon the priests shall place the parts [of the sacrifice]…upon the altar (1:7-8)." These references to the priests are striking for two reasons. Firstly, why is the reference redundant; don't we already know that the priests were the sons of Aharon and visa versa? Secondly, why is the singular, "priest," used initially and the plural, "priests," used subsequently?

Ibn Ezra gives the expected answer to the second issue, the lighting of the alter had to be done by at least two priests whereas the placing of the animal parts on the alter can be done by one. However, even according to him the first question still remains. Rashi refers to the Talmud in Zevachim 17b-18a that deduces from these pasukim that any sacrifice offered by a high priest wearing the garments of a regular priest or a regular priest wearing the garments of a high priest is invalidated. Thus, the singular tense refers to high priest while the plural tense refers to all other priests. The second reference of each pasuk should be construed to refer to the garments and not the individual.

These two halakhot, however, seem to be counterintuitive. If certain garments suffice for a regular priest, than why should they be insufficient for the high priest who's no less than a regular priest? Additionally, why should the garments of the high priest be useless if worn by a regular priest if they seemingly contain at least the sanctity of the regular garments? (In fact, the Talmud states that the rule of the priest can't be deduced from the limitation on the high priest since it's "adding garments." Perhaps, it's the second question that is being referred to.)

A possible answer is that a high priest shouldn't be viewed as merely a regular priest who's special. Rather, once he reaches a higher level, he's categorically a different person who accordingly must meet a new set of standards. Settling for anything less than his full potential is unacceptable. Inversely, the regular priest is warned not to attempt to exceed his potential. If he tries to grasp too much, he ends up grasping nothing. (The idea of attempting to exceed boundaries resulting in nothing is expressed by Maimonides in The Guide to the Perplexed 1:32-33 in reference to not studying subjects one's not prepared for.) The message that these two laws present to us is obvious. It is unacceptable for one to achieve anything less than his potential, even though that lesser level of achievement might be exactly that which is demanded of another. On the other hand, One shouldn't try to take on too much lest one ends up with nothing.

[Prepared by Yossi Kra.]

BETWEEN SIN AND GUILT

The second half of Parashat VaYikra (4-5) describes the various compulsory offerings which a sinner must bring. There are two main types: the chatat, the sin offering, a female lamb or goat brought for the unintentional transgression of one of the thirty-six prohibitions in the Torah which carry a penalty of kareit (excision) if violated willfully; and the asham, the guilt offering, a sort of fine in the form of a ram that relates to the philosophical audacity of an act rather than its halakhic severity. (This is, of course, only the barest summary of these concepts.)

The asham is thus brought by one who accidentally misappropriates Temple property, one who steals and then takes an oath in God's name to bolster the false claim, and one who is unsure if he or she has committed an act which would obligate a chatat; all three show an intolerable carelessness towards that which God has made holy. Ironically, if one is aware of having violated Shabbat accidentally, he or she must bring only a chatat, while a doubtful violation obligates one in the far more expensive asham. In both cases, the point is not, God forbid, to bribe Heaven, as this is a concept as absurd as it is offensive, but rather for the individual to internalize the severity of the sin itself (chatat) or of his or her state of guilt (asham), confess to God (see B'Midbar 5:7), repent, and resolve to improve in the future, thereby gaining atonement.

Yet, tucked in between the units of chatat (chapter 4) and asham (5:14-26) is an interesting phenomenon: the oleh v'yoreid, whose name denotes its three different incarnations: an animal, if the sinner can afford it; a pair of birds, if the sinner is not well-off; or flour, if the sinner is destitute. So what is the oleh v'yoreid, a chatat or an asham? Surprisingly, the Torah calls it both (5:6)!

If we examine the sinners who are obligated to bring an oleh v'yoreid, the nature of the sacrifice becomes even more perplexing. One case reminds us of a chatat—that of one who is ritually impure (tamei) and then either enters the Temple or eats of a sacrifice; the other two—one who unintentionally takes a false oath about his or her personal actions and one who perjures himself or herself to avoid testifying in court—seem to have in more in common with those offenders who bring an asham.

Apparently, the oleh v'yoreid is a sort of hybrid, a chatat-asham that is in truth neither. It is a catch-all category that includes sinners who should be bringing either a chatat or an asham—but by what parameters does one end up in this category? It seems that this criterion is purely pragmatic: quite simply, the sort of offenses which obligate an oleh v'yoreid happen every day in a Torah society. Unfortunately, we now have neither Temple nor Sanhedrin, but in the days when testimony was established mainly by eyewitnesses, people took the name of God seriously, and the hallowed was more than a concept, those who transgressed in these categories could not afford to bring an animal each time. Knowing this fact and that the sin itself or the guilt it engendered are still serious matters requiring atonement, God gives us a break: the oleh v'yoreid.

The concept of the oleh v'yoreid thus undermines the popular misconception that the various sacrifices which dominate the first half of the book of VaYikra are at best esoteric and at worst primitive. The nature of these sacrifices demonstrates that no one knows the human mind better than its Creator, and that He gives us the opportunity to offer sacrifices in His house out of nothing other than His love for us. May we merit to enjoy that aspect of our relationship with God soon once again.

[Prepared by Yoseif Bloch.]

In this week's parasha we start to learn the laws of sacrifices. We begin with sacrifices that we choose to bring and move on to compulsory sacrifices. In the compulsory sacrifices, the sacrifice is there to atone for a transgression. Even with the non-compulsory burnt offering, there is the concept of atonement. It atones, according to a Midrash, for particular categories of transgression. However, the peace offering does not atone. It is not brought for sin at all! So why do we bring it? What does it do?

First we need to explain how sacrifices work for atonement. We know that the sacrifice only atones for a person if he first repents fully for the transgression. We believe that repentance (confession, regret and commitment not to do it again) wipes out our sins, changes the past as if it never was. So after all that, why do we need to bring a sacrifice?

To explain let us consider a parallel . If someone hurts his friend, then makes amends, and gets the friend's forgiveness, they will still have less of a friendship than before. There has been a loss of trust, a creation of distance. One of the friends did not act like a friend should. The same is true when we transgress. We have acted as if God is not in charge of the world, as if He did not command us to keep His laws. Even when repentance has wiped out the misdeed, we are still further from God than when we started. Now the answer is clear: sacrifices bring us closer to God. When we transgress, they can bring us back to where we were before. In the case of the peace offering (where there is no transgression), the sacrifice is there to bring us closer to God.

The peace offering can teach us something. We are not as Jews trying merely to avoid transgressing and to keep as close to God as we are already. We are not limited by 613 commandments. That is our base and from there, we can climb closer to God, just as our ancestors did when they brought a peace offering in the Temple.

Samuel Jackman.

The book of Vayikra opens with "Vayikra El Moshe" - Hashem called Moshe." We find that the "aleph" at the end of the word Vayikra is smaller than the other letters of the word. Why?

The Baal Haturim explains that God also called Bilam and there the word used for "called" is "Vayikar." Moshe Rabeinu, the humblest of men wanted to also write here "Vayikar" and did not want to show that when God calls him, he adds another "aleph." God told Moshe to write the word with an aleph, inorder not to disobey God, Moshe wrote the aleph smaller than the other letters.

There are three questions we can ask on this explanation.

1) We find many times in the Torah that God called Moshe and it is written "Vayikra" with a big "aleph."

2) Why would Moshe desire to be compared to the wicked Bilam?

3) The word Vayikar is explained to be a derogatory term?

I would like to propose two answers.

If we look in the Midrashim we find a similar explanation to that of the Baal Haturim but slightly different. The Midrash explains that the "aleph" is small inorder to teach us, that when God speaks to the nations of the world, he speaks to them with only half a statement, but when speaking to Bnei Yisrael, God speaks to them with a full statement. This answers questions 2 and 3, but does not solve our first question.

This brings me to the second answer, which explains the matter from a different perspective. The Midrash Tankhuma explains that when children first start learning, they begin with the book of Vayikra. For these children are pure and free from sin therefore, God said, they should start with the sacrificial section. For these pure children should delve in pure matters (the sacrifices) and God says that it would be as if they sacrificed offerings before me. The Midrash continues that nowadays after the Temple was destroyed and the sacrifices were terminated, if not for the children, who learn about the sacrifices, the world would cease to exist.

The Kol-Bo and the Rokeach tell us that when children first start learning they should start with the book of Vayikra for the reason mentioned above. The Shach writes that today (in his day's already - many years ago) together with the loss of many dear and beautiful customs we have also lost this custom, and for places who still have this custom - they should definitely uphold it.

If our world is protected by those who study the book of Vayikra. Has the time not come to reinstate this beautiful custom?

[Prepared by Ron Sher]

This verse has been understood by the Beit Ha-Levi on a deeper level to refer to the process of teshuva and its parallels with the kashering (halakhic cleansing) of metal vessels).

In order for one to kasher a vessel by submerging it in boiling water after it has been made "traif" (halakhically defiled by cooking certain foods against the halakha) the actual food that is clinging to the pot has to be entirely scraped off, before the cleansing process can take place. So to regarding teshuva, if a person truly intends removing themselves from the acts of their past, it is not enough to just say a magic formula and hope that this will suffice, rather the act itself has to be entirely removed before the teshuva process can effectively take place.

This however, is not a blanket remedy i.e. there are levels of severity to teshuva: With kashering a vessel the extent to which the vessel was defiled is the minimal extent by which it can be remedied e.g. if rabbit meat was cooked on a BBQ, in order to "kasher" the BBQ, fire would have to be used. So to regarding teshuva, if it was a mild sin, the teshuva would be of a lesser extent than that of a more stringent sin.

The most potent rectifying agent in "kashering" is fire (aish). Aish is compared to Torah study ["Halo kah Divrei Ka'aish (Yerimiyahu 23:29)] thus Torah Study has the most potent potential to rectify sin. Beit Ha-Levi - Drushim, Drush 15.

[Prepared by Jarred Myers]

As part of its discussion of the meaning and significance behind the Temple and sacrifices, the Midrash Rabba in our parasha (1:2) understands the following verse from Tehillim (48:2-3) as referring to the Bet Hamikdash: "Yefei nof - mesos kol ha-aretz"; "His holy mountain - beautiful branches, joy of all the earth." How does the image of "nof," branches, apply to the Bet Hamikdash?

Rav Yehoshua Levi Diskin suggests that this metaphor relates to the universal quality of the Bet Hamikdash and its sacrifices. A tree provides two services to mankind - it yields fruit and supplies shade. Whereas only the tree's owner may lay claim to the fruits, the shade is enjoyed by any passerby. Similarly, explains the Maharil Diskin, the Bet Hamikdash serves the world on two levels. Primarily, the korbanot elevate only those who bring the offerings or on behalf of whom they are brought - namely, only Benei Yisrael themselves. But additionally, the Temple offers "shade" to the entire universe. The impact of the service in the Mikdash extends throughout the world and increases the bestowal of divine mercy upon all mankind.

Just as the Mikdash operates on these two levels, so does the sanctuary within every individual have a dual capacity to influence others. First and foremost, we impact upon those with whom we come into regular contact. The way we reach out to others, sensitize ourselves to their needs, and concern ourselves with their concerns directly affects those with whom we deal on a daily basis. Secondly, however, we supply "shade" to everyone around us, even those with whom we do not communicate directly. By being who we are, by setting an example of high ethical and religious standards, we can influence those around us to an extent we could perhaps never even imagine.

[Prepared by David Silverberg]

Intentions and Performance

Parashat Vayikra begins with the three parashiot of the Olah - the burnt offering, that of cattle, sheep and fowl. All three parashiot end with the assertion that it is a "pleasant offering before Hashem." The last mishna of Menachot explains that this tells us that it is the same whether one brings more or less so long as one directs one's heart to heaven. This can be understood as teaching either that providing one does one's best all offerings are equal or that ultimately there is no difference - the only concern being to what extent one's heart is directed to heaven.

The question - in view of the above - of why there is an obligation to always offer better sacrifices, and beautify mitzvot generally, has been dealt with by different authorities, arriving at different conclusions.

Rabbi Yehuda HaChassid understood there to be value in the beautification of mitzvot per se - presumably as a form of expression of love towards God (Sefer Chassidim 931).

Rabbeinu Tam understood there to be value only in beautification that is seen by people. This may indicate that regarded the value of beautification to be only in its functional use of instilling a sense of love and respect in others (Tosafot, Menachot 32b s.v. Ha).

The Ramban (and more particularly his disciple the Ritva) understood the value of aesthetics to be enhancing one's own feelings of regard toward the mitzva being performed, and keeping clear of negative feelings (Shavuot 15a).

These three approaches result from the attempt to reconcile the philosophical teaching that ultimately only intention counts with the halakhic obligation, in the practical domain, to invest in the physical.

Shabbat shalom.

[Prepared by Shlomo Dov Rosen.]

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

(c) YeshivHar Etzion1997 All rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion

Yeshivat Har Et
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il