AND IF HIS MEANS DO NOT SUFFICE FOR TWO TURTLEDOVES OR TWO PIGEONS, HE
SHALL BRING AS HIS OFFERING FOR THAT OF WHICH HE IS GUILTY A TENTH OF AN EPHA
OF CHOICE FLOUR FOR A SIN OFFERING; HE SHALL NOT ADD OIL TO IT OR LAY
FRANKINCENSE ON IT FOR IT IS A SIN OFFERING.
Said Rabbi Yehuda: Beloved is a mitzvah performed at its proper time, for he immediately brings a tenth of a epha, and we do not wait until he becomes wealthier.
(Yalkut Shimoni, Vayikra 4,
474)
There are sins which oblige the sinner to bring an offering entitled
"raised and lowered" - meaning, if he is wealthy, he offers an costly
offering, a sheep: "But if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he
shall bring to the Lord, as his penalty for that of which he is guilty, two
turtledoves or two pigeons" (Vayikra
5:7), and if he lacks even this: "He shall bring for his
offering of that of which he is guilty a tenth of an epha of choice
flour."
"Once a woman brought to the Temple a kometz [a handful] of choice flour, and the priest scorned her, saying: What are they offering? What is there to eat? The priest dreamt: Do not scorn her, for it is as if she had offered her soul."
(Vayikra Rabba 3:5)
The pauper's meager offering is equal in value to the precious offering of the rich.
(A. Stahl, "Shabbat B'Shabbato" vol. II, p.11)
"Vayikra" is recorded in our consciousness as the name of "Torat Kohanim" - The Instruction for the Priests - which details the ritual service in the Mishkan. It seems, however, that - unlike the other books of the Pentateuch - the name is somewhat unrelated to the content of the book. Indeed, the book is generally known by the Latin "Leviticus". Perhaps this is the reason that the Midrash and commentators expend so much effort in explanation of the difference between "the calling" and "the speaking" ("Called to Moshe"... "and spoke") which appear at the beginning of the book. The (technical) explanation offered for the use of the two terms is that Moshe is prevented from appearing before God in the Tent of Appointment in the Holy of Holies; entry requires express invitation ("calling") by The Holy One, Blessed Be He. Rashi, following the midrash which detects in "calling" an attitude of closeness and affection by The Holy One, Blessed Be He, for Moshe, writes: "A term of affection, a term employed by ministering angels, as is written: "And they called one to the other." The two explanations are based upon different evaluations of the relationships between Moshe and The Holy One, Blessed Be He, at the beginning of the Book of Vayikra. One explanation speaks of a formal hierarchical relationship; the second identifies a component of intimacy.
Close study of the passage, and especially of the verb "kra" - "call" - reveals that the goal of scripture was to create relationships of authority, distance, and control. "Calling" generally denotes a spatial relationship of higher to lower, from above to below. The verb "vayikra" as it appears in the Pentateuch has two meanings: The giving of a name (an act which indicates control, mastery, and ownership) and the call of a person in authority to his subject or to whom is found under his authority. This can also be seen in the two additional places pointed out by the Midrash in which the 'call' preceded God's speaking to Moshe - at the Burning Bush and at Sinai. In each of the three places, the hierarchy is intrinsic to the situation. The elements which compose the drama at the Bush create a clear hierarchy between the mortal Moshe and the holiness which emanates from the Bush. Moshe hides his face in awe of the Lord. At Sinai, the two calls by The Holy One, Blessed Be He to Moshe are accompanied by a geographical description placing the Lord above and Moshe below, so that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, can be reached only by ascent. In our parasha, the ruler-subject relation implied by the verb "vayikra", is highlighted by the fact that the The Holy One, Blessed Be He, is not explicitly mentioned; the passage says only "He called to Moshe." The stricter the hierarchical nature of the relationship, and the greater the power of the ruler over his denizens, so is there less of a need to mention the identity of the caller to those who accept his authority - it is clear (See the somewhat contrived explanation of the Ohr Hachayim on this point).
The ruler-ruled relationship embodied in the word "Vayikra" are an essential introduction to the laws of sacrifices. The verb "k'r'v'" appears - in addition to sacrifices - in two more connotations: proximity, and the face of a body or nation. In other words, The offering of the sacrifice expresses a desire to come close to the Lord, as the organs of the sacrifice are symbolic of the man's internal organs which are to effect atonement. The offering of the sacrifice is a sensory metaphor for man's subjection to God. It is no coincidence that in Hebrew, the word for sacrifice - korban - also means the victim of a transgression and also expresses mesirut nefesh - self-sacrifice - on behalf of others or on behalf of an idea. The tie between a sacrifice and the victim of transgression is ancient - the murder of Hevel by Kayin because of an offering created the first connection (even though the root k'r'v' does not at all appear in the story). It was the Akeidat Yitzhak - the intended sacrifice of Yitzhak - which is engraved on the collective memory of the Jewish nation, which established the deep connection between the sacrifice and victim. Yitzhak, led by his father to slaughter, helpless and subject to disinformation, is the archetype of the victim and of the victim-transgressor relationship. (The law regarding the rights of those hurt by transgression, which was recently accepted in the Knesset, expresses the need to free the victims of transgression from the stigma attached to the 'victim' - helplessness and weakness).
The command to offer sacrifices appears in the framework of an inflexible hierarchical system. In the 'Vayikra" complex, the subjects, those found in an inferior and weak position, are expected to endanger themselves or that which is dear to them for the sake of the system's principles. The command "Adam ki yakriv" - "If a man offer" of the second passage of our parasha teaches us humility. Adam - Man, the name of one who is not God, of one created on the sixth day of Creation, he is the one who gave "names to all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the fields." The subordination of this man to God teaches him humility in his relations
with all that surrounds him. He cannot to raise himself above any
other man found on his level, and he cannot act with brutality to living beings
subservient to him - in order that The Holy One, Blessed Be He, not act towards
him similarly.
Yair Aldan is a lawyer
Mr. Leibowitz stresses that "the black flag [as a symbol of refusal] waves over every act of Tzahal in the territories" (my emphasis) - the editors of the sheet encourage us, the readers, to cope with complex moral dilemmas from a religious-Torah viewpoint.
It is clear to me that the war of Jihad against us presents Mr. Leibowitz and the rest of our soldiers and policemen with very difficult and complex situations, on a combat level and on an emotional level.
It is understandable that there may be people who lack the strength to face up to this problem.
In
this matter, in a state of war, the Torah encourages us: "Hear, Israel,
today you are approaching war against your enemies, let not your hearts become
soft, fear not, and panic not, and dread them not." But the Torah
permits the unconvinced to return to their homes: "Who is the man who
is afraid and soft-hearted let him leave and return to his home." (Devarim 20:3,8)
If we follow these words of the Torah, Mr. Leibowitz is able to go home, but he has no right to weaken the hearts of other soldiers, on the bases of an arbitrary understanding of the situation ("all the acts of Tzahal in the territories"); he cites quotes from the Bible which are intended to strengthen his view. [Here the writer criticizes the comparison to Avraham's argument with God regarding Sodom - criticism offered by other readers which was already printed in the previous edition].
Supporters of the Jihad incite their people to destroy Israel; they blow up synagogues, buses, hospitals, etc., and even glorify in these actions, and use children, women, and hospitals as living shieldS and also as "propaganda material", and all this is not because of "settlers in the territories: it is not because of Mr. Ariel Sharon in "Al-Aksa": Have we also forgotten the acts of terror of '29, '36-'38, '46-'47; and the Mufti Amin El-Hussein, ally of the Nazis who demanded already in '43 - "To kill the Jews as a commandment of Allah"? Arafat and his people are his followers.
Mr.
Leibowitz's letter appeared in the edition of Parashat Zachor - coincidence or
not? The terrorist acts of the advocates of Jihad are very similar to the acts
of Amalek; they attack the weak; they bring fear to every heart; they turn our
land into a hell for us. The Torah commands us: "Erase the memory of
Amalek from beneath the heavens, do not forget."
Were a retreat to "the boundaries of '67" able to bring true and lasting peace, we would perhaps be able to give up "the territories", but during the reign of Rabin/Peres/Barak we learned that that this idea is not realistic. The suffering of the two peoples - the Israeli and Palestinian - will continue until "the erasure of the memory of Amalek" - i.e., until there is an end to the Jihad.
(See my article: "The Possibility of Peace
between Yishmael and Israel According to the Bible and the Koran" with a
supportive introduction by Sheikh Prof. Abdul Haadi Palchi.).
Dr. Asher Adar
Jewish Chairman of the Islam-Israel Association of Agudat Shoresh Va'anaf, Yerushalayim
First and foremost I wish to emphasize that I am against all offense against innocent people; people who are proved to have injured innocent civilian populations should be brought to strict account.
However, Mr. Leibowitz's article is deficient in at least in two major respects:
First of all, the writer systematically and purposely ignores the state of war in which we are found, a war forces upon us by the Palestinians. Throughout the article there is not to be found even the slightest hint or allusion to any empathy for the hundred of innocent Jews murdered in terrorist acts without differentiation between men, women, and children.
Is the blood of innocent Palestinians redder than that of Jewish innocents?
Secondly, the attempt of the writer to harness Jewish sources in support of refusal to serve in the territories is replete with the classic demagogic ploy of taking an incident, presenting a partial picture of, wrapping it in warped commentary, in order to suit it to his opinions and world view:
1. Our father Avraham was never a partner to any initiative, planning, or execution of the destruction of Sodom and its satellite towns. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, whose "Mercies are on all his creations" (Psalms, 135:9) is the one who initiated, planned, and executed.
From this we see that presentation of our father Avraham as a conscientious objector is totally distorted.
Our father Avraham realized a basic line of action in Jewish law, that of seeking merit for one sentenced to death before execution of the sentence.
2. In Parashat Zachor, the Torah expressly commands "Erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens, do not forget." Were there no innocent persons to be found in Amalek?
King Saul was commanded to smite
Amalek "Man and woman, child and suckling". What was the sin
of Amalekite children and sucklings He was even punished severely for having
pity on Agag, the cattle, and the sheep!
This is to teach us that there are situations in which taking strong measures is the moral option! "Whoever takes pity upon the cruel, in the end becomes cruel instead of merciful, and in the end he is punished by the measure of the law.' (Kohellet Rabba 7:33)
Sure enough, the same Saul who took pity on Amalek later killed all the priests of Nov for no good reason.
3. The massacre of the inhabitants of Shechem by Shimon and Levi following the rape of Dina poses a grave moral problem, but it is irrelevant to our current situation. The inhabitants of Shechem did not initiate hostilities against Yaakov and his family, they did not declare their desire to destroy them, they did not send terrorists to indiscriminately murder them.
One must possess a great degree of hypocrisy and dishonesty to declare that
"Obedience of the
law of the State was never a supreme value in Judaism." I did not hear
the writer and the members of his camp express themselves in this vein when the
psak halacha calling for refusal to obey orders to evacuate settlements
was issued. Will not a government which attempts to abandon and evict
200,000 citizens of its state from their homes have corrupted its ways?
In conclusion, the writer sweepingly and decisively determines that "Above the order to serve in the territories waves a black flag of unlawfulness and immorality, written in the large letters of kiddush levanah, therefore we commit ourselves to continue to serve in Tzahal as long as it remains faithful to its mission..." From where does the writer draw the temerity to decide that service in the territories is not part of Tzahal's original mission? Do not inhabitants of Yesha serve in the army?
The tasks of the branches of the defense forces in Yesha are many and complex. How does the writer dare to void them without detailed discussion, with such generalization? It is known that Tzahal and GSS have prevented many attacks during the last year and a half. How could this have been accomplished without service in the territories?
Your initiative to discuss complex moral dilemmas is deserving of commendation, but Mr. Leibowitz's letter totally missed the mark.
Nadav Haas
Merkaz Shapira
Editor's note: We are thankful to Mr. Leibowitz for
having stimulated the stormy discussion which took place on the heels of his
letter, and to all the readers who reacted - verbally and in writing - to the
decision to publicize the letter and/or to its contents. Due to lack of space,
we could not publish all the reactions which we received. In the coming issue
(Tsav - Shabbat Hagadol), we will publish, with God's help, the editorial
board's reaction to this important and penetrating discussion.
Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser (Editor), Miriam Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein
Translation: Kadish Goldberg
This weekly publication was made possible by:
The Moriah Fund, the
Tisch Foundation and private donors
To our readers:
We will be happy to have you actively participate in "Shabbat Shalom" by:
· Letters to the editor
· Publication of Divrei Torah (in coordination with the editorial board)
For details, contact Miriam Fine (053-920206 or 02-6730196)
If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.
· Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $1000
· English edition distributed via email $ 100
Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.
US, Canadia or British tax-exempt contributions to OzveShalom may be made through the New Israel Fund or through P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.
Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.
New Israel Fund, POB 53410, Jerusalem 91534 (Please include Israeli address and telephone number)
New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA
New Israel Fund of Canada, 801 Eglinton Ave. West, Suite #401, Toronto, Ontario M5N 1E3 Canada (Canadian tax exemption)
New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, United Kingdom (British tax exemption)
P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA
About us:
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues of particular religious relevance.
9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom`s educational forums draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of peace and social issues.
Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.
Our activities are funded by donations and one
part time employee.
OzveShalom/Netivot Shalom Tel./Fax 972-2-5664218
Pob 4433 Email: ozshalom@netvision.net.il
Jerusalem 94310, Israel www. netivot-shalom.org.il