SPEAK TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY TO THEM: WHEN

A MAN FROM [AMONG] YOU BRINGS A SACRIFICE TO THE LORD; FROM ANIMALS, FROM

CATTLE OR FROM THE FLOCK YOU SHALL BRING YOUR SACRIFICE.

(Vayikra 1:2)

Adam ki yakriv mikem [When a man from [among] you brings]: This may be read as allowing for human sacrifice, since it could have

been formulated less ambiguously as Adam mikem ki yakriv. However, Scripture

has avoided this and prohibited it [human sacrifice], and so the verse should

be rendered: When a man

from the flock you shall bring your sacrifice, but

not humans. And that is what

the prophet said: Which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never

came to My mind (Jeremiah 19: 5). And that is why the section regarding

sacrifices begins with the word adam

(Rabbeinu

Behayeiy on Vayikra 1:2)

When a man from [among] you brings – When he brings something of his own, with words of confession and

submission, in the manner expressed by the verse our lips shall offer bulls,

and as it says the sacrifice to God is a broken spirit, for there is no

interest in fools who sacrifice without first submitting themselves.

(Seforno

Vayikra 1:2)

Adam ki yakriv mikem korban la'Hashem

min habeheimah [When a man

from [among] you brings a sacrifice to the Lord] One must understand why the word adam

appears several times in Vayikra. In my humble

opinion, it appears that if Adam had not sinned, sacrifice would be practiced

in a completely different way, in the spiritual manner of angels, as God said,

"I want words" (Shemot Rabbah 38:4). That is why it begins with the word adam, as if to say that Adam's sin made this form of

redress, i.e., the presenting of an offering of cattle, necessary.

(Yodei

Binah, pg. 57)

Harm to the Other: a

Social or a Religious Transgression?

And Exactly Who is the "Other"?

Yosef Bengio

In memory of

Hannah, z"l,

 A brave woman

grandmother

Whose days were cut short

too soon.

The book of Vayikra, which is also called Torat

Kohanim, open up a new dimension in the story

told us by the Torah. The chain of events described by

the two earlier books is interesting. Bereishit

describes figures who serve as paradigms of values and

principles that are shared by humanity in general and by Judaism in particular.

In contrast, the second book – Shemot – concentrates

on the creation of one particular branch of

humanity, i.e., the Israelites who are later to be known as the Jewish People.

That is to say: Bereishit treats the general while Shemot treats the particular; and now in the third book the

text interrupts the story and enters into the inner, religious, and even ritual

aspect of this story of formation.

Our parasha begins

with the sacrifices. Shabbat Shalom has dealt with this topic often, devoting

an issue to it almost every year, so I shall not go into it at length. However,

I will point out two concepts that are hinted at by the sacrifices. On the one

hand, there is sacrifice [hakrava]: we are

called upon to cede part of our property, of

ourselves, in order to become closer [le'hitkarev]

to the Creator. This coming closer is achieved together with and thanks to this

abstraction, and we are all obligated and privileged to perform this

commandment. However, on the other hand, the sacrifice is an act of repair,

atonement, and erasure of sin designated for those who transgress the law. This

contrast comes to light in the order of the various sacrifices: first the burnt

offering and meal offering of the general public, then, separately, the sacrifices

intended to repair sins. This apparent contradiction can be overcome by the

fact that in as much as sacrifice [korban] is

drawing near [hitkarvut], unification,

cleaving to, and the like, it first requires that the one who sacrifices find atonement

and purity, since in this world good and evil are intermingled; in order to

rise up above the natural condition we must purify ourselves and erase the evil

within us. Thus, every sacrifice involves both of the above functions.

Various

sins are mentioned in the continuation of the parasha.

Two conditions must be fulfilled in order that the sacrifice

atone for them:

1)

The transgression involves the commission of a forbidden act (a negative

commandment), as if the sinner decided criteria of permitted and forbidden and of

good and evil by himself. It is a very serious thing when we permit things to

ourselves which are forbidden by the Torah – this is reminiscent

of Adam's sin; therefore this is the original sin, the source of all

transgressions.

2)

The second condition comes to soften the first: the transgression was committed

inadvertently. The act is wrong in itself but the intention remains good. There

is no abandonment of principle here, there is no

problem of conscience or morality. Here it is possible to see the Torah's

fundamental optimism…

The

next verses discriminate between different categories of transgressors. As

expected, the Torah differentiates between the individual and the group when

the transgression is common to the entire community. However, the Torah also

introduces a third category which we may define as belonging to both of the two

previous categories; it is called the prince's sin. It refers to an

individual person who acts in the name of the entire community; his

responsibility is obviously different from that of a private individual.

Somewhat

surprisingly, at the end of the parasha the Torah

presents a category of transgression which is not "religious," but

rather what we would call "social,"

such as theft, exploitation, breach of contract, etc. It should be pointed out

that social concern is reflected in the Torah's taking care that every person

be able to perform his duty and privilege of offering sacrifice. The economic

value of the sacrifice changes in accordance with the relative wealth of the sacrificer. I would like to dedicate some thoughts

regarding the social aspect of the sacrifices to all those people who, each in

his own way and inspired by the Torah, are trying to correct the social distortions

they find around them.

Let

us then read Vayikra 5: 20-26 together.

20) And

the Lord spoke to Moses, saying – This verse follows a line-break [parasha petuha] in

the Torah, as if to say that a new, different topic is being broached. It is

worth mentioning that the word va'yidaber ("spoke,"

rather than va'yomer: "said") hints

that hard words were said; the previous use of the word va'yidaber in 4:1 begins the passage on

transgressions.

21)

If a person sins, betraying the Lord – The verse begins with the word nefesh ["person," literally "soul"].

Why doesn't the Torah write If a person [adam] (or a man – ish)

sins when speaking of inter-human relations? In his commentary, Or

Ha'Haim, Rabbi Haim ben Atar explains that social

transgressions harm the soul just as religious transgressions do. When a

person sins, his soul loses some of its light and status. A social

transgression causes the soul to be spoiled. R. Atar's

comment explains the continuation of the verse – betraying the Lord.

We expected to find the list of social transgressions here, but the Torah

wanted to teach us that the harm he causes to his friend is also an offense

against God.

The

Torah lists a number of situations involving insult to the dignity of one's

fellow:

by

falsely denying to his fellow concerning a deposit: A gave B money or property as a deposit,

and when the time came for it to be redeemed, B refuses to return the deposit,

claiming that he had never received it.

or money given in hand Rashi explains

that this refers to a case in which two people joined together in some

transaction without witnesses or formal agreement. A human court cannot

intercede in such a situation, but there is a third party who is aware of the

deal and who can intercede – the Holy One blessed be He. The ShLaH HaKadosh supports Rashi's view, and writes: "How serious is the sin of

one who disavows business dealings? Even though it is merely a business matter,

he is a heretic against the blessed Lord."

or an object taken by robbery – this is self explanatory.

or he withheld funds from

his fellow[amito] The case itself is understood, but we shall

underscore the word fellow. The harm is perpetrated against

someone other than yourself, even though he is like you ("fellow" = amit = im =

connected). This is Saadia Gaon's

opinion; he defines amit as ra'ehu; his neighbor or kinsman. He adds that theft

involves a double harm: a) the theft itself b) the harm to the person as someone

bearing the divine image, which explains the phrase betraying the Lord.

The Or HaHaim goes even further in his

exegesis of the word amito in the phrase falsely

denying to his fellow as implying that he had cheated the entire

Israelite community.

22)

or he found a lost article and he denied it, etc. – All

of these examples are similar in that they all involve transgressions against

others, or more precisely, against their wealth or property. Neglecting the

other's outer presence (his external property: his home, money, fields, etc.)

appears to be more serious than harm to his inner self. "Beautiful souls"

will claim that property is unimportant and that the important thing is to

respect each person's spirituality. The Torah returns us to thoughts of this

world, to tell us that material matters must also be respected.

23)

and it shall be, when he has sinned and is guilty

– The sinner recognizes his transgression and confesses it. Rashi

emphasizes that without confession there can be no sacrifice or atonement. The confession

does not come to humiliate the sinner, but rather quite the opposite; it exalts

him and adds to his importance in that he expresses his spiritual freedom to

recognize his sin and confess to it. that

he shall return the article which he had robbed – The Zohar states that the tikkun

is a necessary precondition for confession and completion of the atonement. It

might be thought that return of the stolen object constitutes the tikkun for the act of theft, but here the Torah

points to the social damage; in addition to returning the stolen object, its

owner must also be reconciled. To that end the Torah requires that the thief

add further compensation to stolen object he shall pay it with its

principal, adding its fifths to it. The Hizkuni

explains that if the thief admits to his crime he must pay an additional fifth

of the value of the object when he returns it. If he only confesses after being

forced to do so in light of other testimony brought against him, he must pay

yet another fifth of the additional fifth. The Hizkuni

adds that the sacrifice is brought to the priest in conjunction with the return

of the stolen object. All of these details come to emphasize the human aspect

surrounding this category of transgressions. The Seforno

compares the need to placate the victim of theft to the placation of Yom

Kippur: "The sacrifice does not atone unless he placates the injured party

before bringing the sacrifice."

25).

He shall then bring his guilt offering to the Lord – After his fellow

is satisfied, and only then, the sinner can bring his sacrifice to the priest. Why

doesn't he bring his sacrifice directly to God against whom he has sinned? This

comes to teach us about the place of the priest and about the name of the book

– Torat Kohanim

– the Law of the Priests – that the priest is considered to be a mediator

between the individual and God.

26) And

forgiven – The completion of the whole process closes the circle. The

transgression is repaired and the message becomes clear that a social

transgression bears the same weight as a religious transgression. The fellow,

the other, is the same other.

A

social transgression is actually a religious transgression – Doing evil to one's fellow means doing

evil to God. The "other" is always the "other"

whether he be my neighbor or God. My encounter with

the other, whether it be the divine "Wholly Other" or my neighbor or

my spouse involves a positive motivation that is my desire and ambition to draw

near to the other, to know him, to connect with him and cling to him. Friction

between the two does bring about mishaps, injuries, and transgressions. The

moral of our parasha is that all transgressions of

this type can be repaired and atoned for, and that this is the challenge

offered us by the Torah.

Dr. Yosef Bengio is a sociologist and

educator

Who is the Adam (Person) Who Offers Sacrifice?

Adam includes converts who take the covenant upon themselves as does Israel, including non-Jews who do so. Even though

adam here means [a

member of] Israel, later in the verse we find the word mikem